STRIKE'S CASE. 67

decree, it must have been the intention of the court to reserve all
the rights and equities of the parties for its consideration and
adjustment after the sale had been made.

10th April, 1826.—BLAND, Chancellor.—This case has been
very elaborately argued, and is now presented to the court for the
purpose of being finally closed. It appears to have been warmly
contested in every stage. It has been partly decided, but there
yet remains much to be judicially considered and determined.

There is no principle, in relation to the administration of justice,
which it is more important to preserve, or more necessary to adhere
to, than that there must somewhere be an end to litigation. A matter
which has been once solemnly decided, ought not, nor cannot be
reheard and readjudicated; controversy must have an end, or society
could have no peace. Errors of an inferior tribunal may be
corrected by a superior; and even the same court, under certain
circumstances, will correct its own mistakes by motion, petition,
or bill of review. But no court of justice can allow itself to be
engaged in the endless task of weaving and unweaving; of pro-
gressing to an adjudication, and then going back to readjudicate.
Hence, whatever has been heretofore determined in this cause must
now be considered as finally settled, and in every respect unalterable,
except by bill of review, appeal, or in the regular course of law.(a)
This does not seem to have been directly controverted in the argu-
ment; but the counsel differ widely as to the nature of the decree of
May, 1822, and as to how far it extends over the matter of this suit;
and some arguments have been urged which, if yielded to, might lead
the court unwarily to trench upon the confines of that decree.

The first inquiry, therefore, is, how much of this case yet remains
to be judicially passed upon. This case was originated on the
equity side of Baltimore County Court, and has been removed
into this court according to the act of assembly authorizing such
removals. It stands here now as it would have stood had it
continued there, or as if it had been begun and instituted here, and
these proceedings are to be so considered. They have not been
affected by any mere circumstance of place or tribunal, but are here
as if they had all passed under, and been sanctioned by the judicial
authority of the present Chancellor, and will be treated accordingly.

The complainants came into court as the creditors of Henderson
& Rogers, of both and each of them. The plaintiffs complain,

(a) Attorney General v. Bowyer, 3 Yes. 725.