Bills of review are on two grounds: first, error of law apparent
on the face of the record without further examination of matter of
fact; second, new facts discovered since the decree, which should
materially affect the decree and probably induce a different
result.
An aspect of the claim involved cannot be held back when the
case is presented to the court and later made the subject of a bill
of review. Although the decision of the district court which
determined the case sought to be reviewed is alleged to have been
decided upon principles inconsistent with a subsequent decision by
this Court, the subsequent decision will not lay the foundation for
a bill of review for errors of law apparent, or for new matter
in pais discovered since the decree and requiring a
different result.
213 F. 705 affirmed.
The facts, which involve the principles of law upon which bills
of review are granted and their application to this case, are
stated in the opinion.
Page 235 U. S. 409
Memorandum opinion by MR. JUSTICE DAY by direction of the
Court:
This case presents another phase of the bankruptcy of A. O.
Brown & Company, stockbrokers in New York.
Page 235 U. S. 410
See First National Bank of Princeton v. Littlefield,
226 U. S. 110;
Gorman v. Littlefield, 229 U. S. 19;
Schuyler v. Littlefield, 232 U. S. 707.
This case is submitted on the motion of appellee to dismiss,
affirm, or place on the summary docket. The appellants filed a
petition for reclamation in the bankruptcy court, which concerned,
among other stocks, three hundred shares of United States Steel
stock, which are now the subject matter of this controversy. On
April 20, 1911, the district court confirmed the report of the
master, and entered an order dismissing the petitions of appellants
and of some other claimants. Appellants appealed to the circuit
court of appeals, and that court affirmed the district court (193
F. 24). The case then came to this Court, and the judgment of the
court of appeals was affirmed (
226 U. S. 226 U.S.
110). On August 4, 1913, the bill of review with which the present
proceeding is concerned was filed in the district court. This was
more than two years after the original order in the district court,
dismissing the reclamation proceeding, was made. The district court
dismissed the bill of review (213 F. 701). That decree was affirmed
in the circuit court of appeals (213 F. 705). Then the case was
appealed here.
Both courts below put their decisions on the ground that the
appeal to the circuit court of appeals from the original order of
the district court in the reclamation proceedings really involved
the claim for the United States Steel stock in its present aspect,
and that, if not presented to the court of appeals when there on
appeal, it could not be held back and made the subject of a bill of
review, as is now attempted to be done. We think this decision was
clearly right. Furthermore, the ground alleged for the bill of
review now is that the principles which determined the disposition
of the
Gorman case,
229 U. S. 229 U.S.
19 (decided May 26, 1913, a little more than two years after the
decree in the district court), reversing
Page 235 U. S. 411
the circuit court of appeals in the same case (175 F. 769),
would, had they been applied in this case, have required a
different result in the district court in dealing with the original
petition in reclamation, so far as the three hundred shares of the
United States Steel stock, pledged with the Hanover National Bank,
are concerned.
Bills of review are on two grounds: first, error of law apparent
on the face of the record without further examination of matters of
fact; second, new facts discovered since the decree, which should
materially affect the decree and probably induce a different
result. 2 Bates' Federal Equity Procedure 762; Street's Federal
Equity Practice, Vol. 2, ยง 2151.
If the decision in the
Gorman case would have required
a different result if the principles upon which it was decided had
been applied in the original proceeding, which we do not find it
necessary to decide, such subsequent decision will not lay the
foundation for a bill of review for errors of law apparent, or for
new matter
in pais discovered since the decree, and
probably requiring a different result.
Tilghman v. Werk,
39 F. 680 (opinion by Judge Jackson, afterwards Mr. Justice Jackson
of this Court);
Hoffman v. Knox, Circuit Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit, 50 F. 484, 491 (opinion by Chief Justice
Fuller).
The decree of the circuit court of appeals is
Affirmed.