Thomas V. Harvie's heirs. objection to the whole proceeding was, that here 1825. is an attempt, by a bill of review, to revise the original decree, after the appeal is barred by the limitation of five years, prescribed in the acts of Congress. In England, writs of error are limited by statute to twenty years, and the Courts of equity have limited appeals, and bills of review, to the same period, by analogy to that statute." Mr. Justice WASHINGTON delivered the opinion Feb. 18th. of the Court, and after stating the case, proceeded as follows: The first error assigned in the bill of review, involves the merits of the original cause, and was intended to induce a re-examination of the title of the plaintiffs in that cause, the validity of which had been established by the decree. But, previous to an investigation of that subject, a preliminary question has been suggested by the counsel for the appellee, which the Court is called upon to consider. The record shows, that the order of the Court, permitting the bill to be filed, was granted eight years subsequent to the final decree in the original cause; and the question to be decided is, whether this remedy was not barred by length of time? It must be admitted, that bills of review are not strictly within any act of limitations prescribed by Congress; but it is unquestionable, that a Stat. 10, and 11. Wm. III. c. 14. Stat. at Large, vol. 3. p. 2043. Viner's Abr. tit. Limitation, 105. Smith v. Clay, Ambl. 645.; but much better reported in note to Deloraine v. Browne, 3 Bro. Ch. Cas 639. Thomas V. Harvie's heirs. 1825. Courts of equity, acting upon the principle, that laches and neglect ought to be discountenanced, and that in cases of stale demands its aid ought not to be afforded, have always interposed some limitation to suits brought in those Courts. It is stated by Lord Camden, in the case of Smith v. Clay, (Ambl. 645. 3 Bro. Ch. Cas. 639. note,) "that as the Court of equity has no legislative authority, it could not properly define the time of bar by a positive rule; but that, as often as parliament had limited the time of actions and remedies to a certain period in legal proceedings, the Court of Chancery adopted that rule, and applied it to similar cases in equity." Upon this principle it is, that an account for rents and profits, in a common case, is not carried beyond six years, or a redemption of mortgaged premises allowed after twenty years possession by the mortgagee, or a bill of review entertained after twenty years, by analogy to the statute which limits writs of error to that period. These principles seem to apply, with peculiar strength, to bills of review, in the Courts of the United States, from the circumstance, that Congress has thought proper to limit the time within which appeals may be taken in equity causes, thus creating an analogy between the two remedies, by appeal, and a bill of review, so apparent, that the Court is constrained to consider the latter as necessarily comprehended within the equity of the provision respecting the former. For, it is obvious, that if a bill of review to reverse a decree, on the ground of error apparent Thomas V. Harvie's heirs. on its face, may be filed at any period of time 1825. beyond the five years limited for an appeal, it will follow, that an original decree may, in effect, be brought before the Supreme Court for re-examination, after the period prescribed by law for an immediate appeal from such decree, by appealing from the decree of the Circuit Court, upon the bill of review. In short, the party complaining of the original decree would, in this way, be permitted to do indirectly, what the act of Congress has prohibited him from doing directly. Whether a bill of review, founded upon matter discovered since the decree, is in like manner barred by the lapse of five years after such decree, is a question which need not be decided in the present case, since we are all of opinion, that it is in the discretion of the Court to grant leave to file a bill of review for that cause, and that such leave ought not to be granted in a case where it appears that the In this case, the Court below decided, in the original cause, that the title to the land in controversy was vested in the heirs of John Harvie, and decreed the appellant to convey the same to them. If Thomas, then, had no title to the land, of what consequence was it to him, that the conveyance was decreed to be made to all the complain Elmendorf V. 1825. ants in that cause, as being the heirs of Harvie, rather than to two of them, who, he alleged, were entitled to the land as devisees? If they Taylor. did not complain of the decree, (and that they did not, is proved by their plea and demurrer to the bill of review,) and if the plaintiff in this bill was not injured by it, the Court is at a loss to conceive, upon what legal or equitable ground, that decree could have been reversed for the errors growing out of the after discovered evidence. These observations apply equally to the second and third errors assigned. Decree affirmed, with costs. [CHANCERY. LIMITATION. LOCAL LAW.] ELMENDORF, Appellant, v. TAYLOR and others, Although the statutes of limitation do not apply, in terms, to Where an adverse possession has continued for twenty years, it constitutes a complete bar in equity, wherever an ejectment would be barred if the plaintiff possessed a legal title. The rule which requires all the parties in interest to be brought before the Court, does not affect the jurisdiction, but is subject to the discretion of the Court, and may be modified according to circum stances. In the Courts of the United States, wherever the case may be completely decided as between the litigant parties, an interest existing in some other person, whom the process of the Court cannot reach, as if such party be a resident of another State, will not prevent a decree upon the merits. The Courts of every government have the exclusive authority of construing its local statutes, and their construction will be respected in every other country. This Court respects the decisions of the State Courts upon their local In Kentucky, a survey must be presumed to be recorded at the expira- Such an entry is aided by the notoriety of the surveys, which it calls APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Kentucky. This was a bill in equity, brought by the appellant, Elmendorf, in the Court below, to obtain a conveyance of lands held by the respondents under a prior grant, and under entries which were all older than his entry. But the defendants below relied entirely on their patent; and the case, consequently, depended on the validity of the plaintiff's entry. This entry was made on the 19th of April, 1784, as follows: "Walker Daniel enters 8,000 acres, beginning at the most southwestwardly corner of Duncan Rose's survey of 8,000 acres, between Floyd's Fork and Bull Skin; thence along his westwardly line to the 1825. Elmendorf V. Taylor. |