Williams v. Banks

Bartol, J., delivered the opinion of this Court: The decree in this cause was passed by this Court at the June Term, 1862. In conformity with its directions, the cause was remanded to the Circuit Court for Baltimore city,, in order that the decree of that Court, from which the appeal had been taken, in so far as the same had been affirmed,, might he executed. It appears from the petition now filed,, that after the cause had been remanded, the trustees named in the decree executed bonds which were approved, and then proceeded to advertise the property for sale. Whereupon a petition was filed by the appellant, Williams, in the Superior Court of Baltimore city, (before which the cause had been in the meantime removed,, under the Act of Assembly,) praying that Court to restrain the trustees^ from proceeding to sell the property; that petition was dismissed.

The learned Judge of that Court construing the-decree of this Court to be final, as to all matters therein adjudged and decreed, refused to interfere with its execution by the trustees.. Now this petition has been filed for the purpose of having the decree of the 13th of November 1862, revised and reformed, for alleged error, mistake, or inadvertence in. passing the same. The supposed error is alleged to consist in an omission to remand the cause under the Act of 1832, “without affirming or reversing the decree appealed from,” which it is suggested in the petition ought to have ⁵²⁸ been done, instead of making tbe decree final upon all matters conclusively determined, and directing it to be executed. In tbe case of Lovejoy vs. Irelan, decided at the present term, {antapage 56,) this Court has had occasion to consider the rules and principles governing Courts of Equity in applications like the present.

We then said, “that after a decree had been enrolled, the Court will not entertain any application to vary it, except upon consent of all parties, or in respect of matters which are of course.” The petition in this case, unlike