Legal Opinion

Hitch v. Fenby

High Court of Chancery of Maryland

Decided December 15, 1850PublishedCited by 5 opinions

[The bill in this case was filed on the 1st of January, 1848, and its allegations, together with those of the answer, and all the proceedings and facts in the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the Chancellor.]

1Opinion of the Court

The Chahceuloh :

This bill cannot be supported either as a bill of review for error apparent on the face of the decree sought to bo affected by it, or upon the ground of new facts, or facts discovered since the decree, and which could not, with reasonable diligence, have been used at the time when the decree passed. There is no pretence of error apparent upon the face of the decree nor of discovery of facts since its date which could not have been used by way of defence at that time. And even if these objections could be surmounted and a bill of review would lie for new facts or newly…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Livingston v. HubbsNew York Court of Chancery · 1817
  2. Gott v. CarrCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1834
  3. Trumbo v. BlizzardCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1833

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Executors of Fooks v. GhingherCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1937
  2. Presstman v. MasonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1887
  3. Holloway v. Safe Deposit & Trust Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1914
  4. Boulden v. LanahanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1868
  5. Bryan v. WilsonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1937

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API