THOMPSON V. MAXWELL, 95 U. S. 391 (1877)
Subscribe to Cases that cite 95 U. S. 391
Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
USA Constitution Annotated
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Online Case Law
Cornell LII
FastCase $
Lexis $
LexisOne
Loislaw $
USSCPlus.com $
VersusLaw $
Link to the Case Preview: http://supreme.justia.com/us/95/391/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/95/391/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
Thompson v. Maxwell, 95 U.S. 391 (1877)
Thompson v. Maxwell
95 U.S. 391
Syllabus
1. None but parties and privies can have a bill of review, and it will not lie where the decree in question was passed by consent.
2. A decree for carrying out a settlement and compromise of a suit, if obtained without fraud, cannot be impeached.
3. Buffington v. Harvey, supra, p. 95 U. S. 99, cited and approved.
4. As the bill in this case, before it was by amendment converted into a bill of review, approximated to the character of a bill to carry the original decree more effectually into execution, which was the appropriate remedy of the complainants, the Court, while reversing the decree, does not direct that the bill be absolutely dismissed, but that the complainants be allowed to amend it, with leave to defendants to answer any new matter therein introduced, and that the proofs taken in the cause shall stand as proofs at any future hearing thereof, with liberty to either party to take additional proof upon any new matter that may be put in issue by the amended pleadings.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.