
    JOHN WALLEN v. DANIEL HUFF.
    (S. C., Thomp. Cas., 21.)
    Knoxville,
    September Term, 1847.
    BILL OE REVIEW. Will not lie against supreme court decisions.
    A bill of review will not lie to review a decision of the supreme court-.
    A bill of review was filed in the chancery court at Tazewell to review a decision of the supreme court. The chancellor dismissed the bill for want of jurisdiction, and the complainant appealed to this court.
    
      1.No bill of review in supreme court.
    
      A bill of i eview will not lie in the' supreme court to review or reverse its own decree, because it is a bill in the nature of an original bill, and to entertain it would be exercising original jurisdiction, which the supreme court cannot do. Cox v. Breed-love, 2 Yer., 499, 502-510; Wilson v. Wilson, 10 Yer., 200; Elliot v. Cochran, 1 Cold., 389, 393; Hurt v. Long, 6 Pickle, 447-449.
    2.Bill of review in chancery court, when.
    A bill of review will lie in the chancery court to review its own decree, if it is not appealed from; but such bill will not lie in the chancery court to review the decree of the supreme court, or of another chancery court. Cox v. Breedlove, 2 Yer., 506, 509-510; Overton v. Big'elow, 10 Yer., 48-53; Elliot v. Cochran, 1 Cold., 393; Wallen v. Huff, supra; Anderson v. Banks, 5 Sneed, 663, 664; Hurt v. Long, 6 Pickle, 448.
    3.Rehearing not allowed after adjournment of term.
    A rehearing' of a cause decided in the supreme court cannot be allowed at a term subsequent to that at which the decree was rendered, although the cause was retained in court for the purpose of taking' an account. Overton v. Bigelow, 10 Yer., 48-53; Elliot v. Cochran, 1 Cold., 393. So the same rule obtains in the chancery court, where there is final adjudication upon the rights of the parties. Allen v. Barksdale, 1 Head, 240, 241; Craig v. Buchanan, 1 Yer., 141.
   By tlie Court:

No bill of review lies in a chancery court or in this court to review a decision of this court.

Decree affirmed.  