122 BURCH v. SCOTT.

defects of any original bill. It is, therefore, in no sense, properly
and alone, a supplemental bill.(h)

In England, a bill of review can only come in after the decree
has been perfected and enrolled. But if the party discover any
error, or new matter of fact after the decree has been pronounced,
and before it has been enrolled, he may obtain relief by a bill in
the nature of a biil of review; and need not wait, or go to the
expense of having the decree enrolled. Now, from what the
Court of Appeals have said, as we have seen, it clearly follows,
that, in this State, there can be no such thing as a bill, in the na-
ture of a bill of review: since all decrees here are made by being
signed and filed; and when so made, are to be considered as decrees
enrolled. Most clearly such a bill cannot be resorted to in this
case.

A bill of review, properly so called, lies against those who were
parties to the original bill, and against them only; and must be
either for error apparent on the face of the decree, or for some new
matter, (i) But before a bill of review, for newly discovered mat-
ter, can be filed, the party must petition for leave to do so; setting
forth the new matter, strongly sustaining his statement by affida-
vits; upon which the leave of the court is granted. In this case
there has been no petition, setting forth newly discovered matter,
nor any leave given to file such a bill. This bill, therefore, can, in
no respect whatever, be considered as a bill of review, grounded
on the discovery of new matter.

A bill of review for error apparent on the face of the decree,
may be filed without asking, or obtaining the leave of the court;
and it may be brought by either of the parties to the original bill
alone; or it may be filed by a person not a party to the original
decree, but whose rights are injured by it. Such is the case now
before this court. The bill of these plaintiffs has this character;
and more.

This bill has yet another aspect. It alleges, that the plaintiffs,
one of whom was a party to the original suit, had a good and
available defence; that all of them should have been made parties;
that they have, all of them, an interest which they will be able to
maintain and prove; and that the decree of the 4th of August last
was obtained by surprise, for a greater amount than was actually

(h) 1 Mont Dig. 315; 2 Mad. Chan. 519; 1 Fow. Ex. Pra. 61.—(i) 1 Mont Dig
380; 2 Mad. Chan. 537.