414 CHANCERY. [ART. 16

1904, art. 16, sec. 177. 1888, art. 16, sec. 164. Rule 50.

186. All final decrees, and orders in the nature of final decrees,
shall be considered as enrolled from and after the expiration of thirty
days from the date of the same, the day of the date inclusive.
See notes to sec. 188.

Ibid...sec. 178. 1888. art. 16, sec. 165. Rule 51.

187. Clerical mistakes in decrees or decretal orders, or errors aris-
ing from any accidental slip or omission, may, at any time before the
enrollment of such decrees or orders, be corrected by order of the court
or judge thereof upon petition, without the form or expense of a
rehearing.

See notes to sec. 188.

Ibid. sec. 179. 1888, art. 16, sec. 166. Rule 52.

188. Every petition for rehearing shall contain the special matter

or cause on which such rehearing is applied for, and shall be signed by

solicitor or the petitioner himself; and the facts therein -stated, if not

apparent on the record, shall be verified by the oath of the party, or by

some other person. No rehearing shall be granted after the enrollment

of the decree or decretal order; and if the decree or order has been

executed, parties who have acted on the faith of such decree or order

shall not be prejudiced by such decree or order being reversed or varied.

This, and the preceding section, do not take from courts of equity their

inherent power to correct mistakes in their own proceedings at any time, in

the exercise of a sound discretion. While it is well settled as a general rule

that after enrollment a decree cannot, be revised, save by a bill of review or

an original bill for fraud, this rule does not apply to a manifest clerical

error in a decree, nor to cases not heard on their merits In which it is alleged

that the decree was entered by mistake or surprise, etc. Primrose v. Wright,

102 Md. 108.

The objection that a petition for rehearing was filed after the decree was
enrolled under section 186, cannot be made in the court of appeals unless it
was raised below. How such objection may be waived. Cherbonnier v. Good-
win, 79 Md. 61.

This section referred to in deciding that a party might file exceptions to a
mortgage sale in propria persona. Aukam v. Zantzinger, 94 Md. 425.

Ibid. sec. 180. 18S8, art. 16, sec. 167. 1886, ch. 433.

189. Where it shall appear that the court has jurisdiction of a
case, but there is doubt as to the residence of a party against whom
process is necessary, or the same be wrongfully alleged, several writs
may be issued, as of course, to as many counties within the State,* or
requisite process concurrently to different places without the State, or
both writs and process, within and without the State, for service upon
such party; but if any process hereunder be vexatiously or unnecessarily
issued, the court may order the costs of same to be paid by the party
asking or directing the issue of such process.

*[As may be directed.]