Bell v. Gosnell

Brent, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appeal in this case is from a decree of the Court below dismissing a bill of review, filed by the appellant for the purpose of vacating and setting aside a decree, which had been passed against him upon the complaint of Gosnell, one of the appellees. The ground upon which it is asked that this decree may be reviewed, is that there are errors of law apparent upon its face. These are alleged to be, First.

That Gosnell, the complainant, had no vendor’s lien upon the land decreed to be sold. Second. That the decree is so ambiguous, that it is not clear whether the Court included or not, in the lien adjudged, claims for ground-rent and taxes. And lastly.

That the case was not ready for final decree without reference to the auditor. In determining “ errors of law,” the bill, answer and other pleadings, together with the decree itself, under the well-established law of this State, will be looked at. Where errors apparent of law are assigned, they must consist of .some defect disclosed upon the record, which in law is sufficient to vitiate and avoid the decree. A merely erroneous conclusion or judgment of the Court will not answer.

These are the proper subjects of redress upon an appeal, and not by a bill of review — as said by Lord Eldon, 17 Ves., 178, “ The cases of error apparent, found in the books are of this sort; an infant not having a day to show cause, &c., not merely an erroneous judg ⁵⁷³ ment.” "With the testimony in this ease we have nothing to do, and it has been, very properly, omitted from the record. Are there any such errors apparent as will vacate this decree ? The original bill in this case does not aver that the deed of conveyance from Ferine to Gosnell, exhibited with it, is the evidence of the vendor’s lien claimed by Gosnell. That a lien of this description may be assigned by special contract is admitted law, and whenever a decree, which recites, as the present one does, that it is rendered upon the pleadings and evidence in