The function of a bill of review filed for newly discovered
evidence is to relieve a meritorious complainant from a clear
miscarriage of justice where the court is able to see, upon a view
of all the circumstances, that the remedy can be applied without
mischief to the rights of innocent parties and without unduly
jeopardizing the stability of judicial decrees.
The relief prayed by a bill of review for newly discovered
evidence is matter of sound discretion, and not of absolute right,
and even though
Page 235 U. S. 288
the evidence be persuasive of error in the former decree, the
bill of relief should not be allowed if it should result in
mischief to innocent parties.
Notwithstanding this Court has recently decided, in an action
between North Carolina and Tennessee, that the boundary between
them is different from that which the circuit court of appeals had
previously adjudged it to be in cases affecting titles to land now
owned by third parties relying on the decree of that court, it will
not now overturn those decisions, as the stability of judgments and
the protection of rights acquired in reliance upon them would,
under the circumstances of this case, make the review
inequitable.
194 F. 301, refusing a bill to review 103 F. 531, affirmed.
The facts, which involve the principles controlling the granting
of bills of review in cases affecting title to land, and their
application to property the title to which is claimed under grants
of different states the boundary between which has long been in
dispute, are stated in the opinion.
MR. JUSTICE McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.
In 1907, petitioners, alleged successors to David W. Belding and
others, filed a bill of review against the heirs and
representatives of Charles Hebard in the United States Circuit
Court, Eastern District of Tennessee, wherein they sought to
reverse the decree for complainant, granted by the same court June
10, 1899, and later affirmed by the circuit court of appeals in the
cause entitled
Hebard v. Belding, which was instituted to
determine the title to some 7,000 acres of mountain land. The Smoky
Mountain Land, Lumber & Improvement Company intervened, denied
the alleged equities,
Page 235 U. S. 289
and set up that it had purchased the property for value and in
good faith. The trial court, having heard the matter upon the
pleadings and evidence, dismissed the bill, and this was affirmed
by the circuit court of appeals (194 F. 301). The cause is here
upon certiorari.
The land in controversy lies on the waters of Slick Rock Creek,
an affluent of the Little Tennessee River, and for some time prior
to 1895 was claimed by Hebard under a grant from the State of
Tennessee. Belding and others claimed it under a North Carolina
grant. The rights of the disputants depended on the true location
of the dividing line between the two states. If, after crossing the
Little Tennessee, the line ran southward along Hangover Ridge, the
land was within Tennessee and belonged to Hebard; if, on the other
hand, it ran along Slick Rock Creek, the North Carolina grant was
good, and Belding and others were the owners. In 1895, Hebard began
a suit in the Chancery Court, Monroe County, Tennessee, seeking an
adjudication of his rights. This was removed to the United States
circuit court; elaborate proofs were taken, and, upon the hearing,
the court determined that the state line ran along Hangover Ridge,
as contended by Hebard, and adjudged the title to be in him. The
circuit court of appeals, in a final decree, entered July 13, 1900,
affirmed this action, the opinion being written by the late Mr.
Justice Lurton (103 F. 532).
Some years before the present suit was brought, the Smoky
Mountain Land, Lumber & Improvement Company, relying upon the
last-mentioned final decree in the circuit court of appeals, in
good faith and for value, acquired the interest of Hebard. As
security for debt, Belding and others, by deeds of December, 1899,
and March, 1900, transferred to Archer and McGarry, trustees, with
power of sale, their interest in a large tract of land the
boundaries of which included the 7,000 acres now in question,
"subject, nevertheless, to all deductions,
Page 235 U. S. 290
if any, arising by, through, or under the
State Line' Suit
hereinafter mentioned" (Hebard v. Belding). Default having
occurred, the trustees executed a deed to William R. Hopkins and
others, petitioners here, with covenants of seisin and right to
convey and special warranty, but from the covenants they expressly
excepted
"all those lands situated at or near the state line, between the
State of North Carolina and Tennessee, which were recovered in a
certain action known as the 'State Line Suit,' which was pending in
the United States Circuit Court for the Eastern District of
Tennessee, and was brought by one Hebard against David W. Belding
and others, if future proceedings do not recover the title
thereof."
During the year 1821, commissioners appointed by North Carolina
and Tennessee located and marked the southern portion of the
dividing line between the two states, and prepared a map roughly
indicating it. After being lost for many years, in December, 1903,
or early in 1904, this was found among old, discarded papers stored
in the basement of the Capitol at Nashville. Relying on the map as
newly discovered evidence, adequate, when considered in connection
with that formerly introduced, to demonstrate that the dividing
line between the two states ran along Slick Rock Creek, and to
establish the invalidity of the Tennessee grant under which Hebard
claimed, petitioners began the present proceeding.
Likewise relying in part upon the same map, the State of North
Carolina in March, 1909, presented an original bill in this Court
against Tennessee, claiming that the true line between them ran
along Slick Rock Creek, and praying an adjudication to that effect.
In an opinion recently announced, the contention of North Carolina
was sustained.
North Carolina v. Tennessee, ante, p.
235 U. S. 1.
The function of a bill of review filed for newly discovered
evidence is to relieve a meritorious complainant from a
Page 235 U. S. 291
clear miscarriage of justice where the court is able to see,
upon a view of all the circumstances, that the remedy can be
applied without mischief to the rights of innocent parties, and
without unduly jeopardizing the stability of judicial decrees. The
remedy is not a matter of absolute right, but of sound discretion.
Thomas v. Harvie's
Heirs, 10 Wheat. 146;
Ricker v. Powell,
100 U. S. 104,
100 U. S. 107;
Craig v. Smith, 100 U. S. 226,
100 U. S. 233;
2 Daniell's Ch Pr. *1577; Story, Eq. Pl. § 417; Street's Fed.Eq.Pr.
§§ 2143, 2156, 2159; Gibson's Suits in Chancery, §§ 1058, 1062.
The trial court regarded the newly discovered evidence as
favorable, rather than in opposition, to the original decree, and
accordingly dismissed the petitioners' bill. The circuit court of
appeals, in a well considered opinion, upheld the result, but for a
different reason, saying:
"In our opinion, taking into account not only the speculative
purchase by appellants, but also the good faith purchase by the
Smoky Mountain Company, a case is not presented which appeals to
the equitable discretion of the court to allow the review of a
decree upon the ground alone of newly discovered evidence. We rest
our decision solely upon this proposition. Bearing in mind the rule
that this bill of review for newly discovered evidence is not of
right, no matter how persuasive of error in the original decree the
new evidence may be, and that it should not be allowed if such
allowance would result in mischief to innocent parties, and having
in view the stability necessary to be afforded to decrees,
especially of courts of last resort, where disturbance thereof is
not essential to the protection of the real equities of the parties
before the court, we think the review asked for should be denied.
In our opinion, the stability of judgments, and thus the protection
of rights acquired in reliance upon them, are such as, under the
peculiar circumstances of this case, to make the review asked for
inequitable. "
Page 235 U. S. 292
Notwithstanding our conclusion in the proceedings between the
States of North Carolina and Tennessee, where the established facts
in respect to the location of the dividing line were, for the most
part, the same as those disclosed in the record now before us, we
think the decree of the circuit court of appeals was right, and it
is accordingly
Affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE DAY took no part in the consideration and decision
of this case.