
    Wm. A. Caldwell, Administrator of George Chur, v. Robert Giles, Assignee.
    A decree obtained by fraud may be set aside on an original bill for that purpose ; but on a bill to obtain satisfaction of a former decree, the defendant in his answer cannot avail himself of this so as to resist performance. [*548]
    Heard before Chancellor Harper, Charleston, January Term, 1856.
    The decree of the Chancellor states the question made in this case as follows:
    “ The plaintiff’s bill is to obtain satisfaction of a decree for the payment of $1,488 13, and interest, formerly obtained in this Court, by his intestate, the said George Chur, against the defendant, Robert Giles, assignee of Thomas W. Giles. There is no question of the fact of such decree having been obtained, or that it remains unsatisfied. But the defendant, by his answer, states many circumstances to show that the original demand on which the decree was obtained, was unjust and fraudulent. These were *evidently the same matters which were urged in defence in the former canse, and cannot be taken into consider- L ation now.
    “ Among the rest, however, it is Stated that the decree itself was obtained by fraud, by the said George Chur’s inducing the said Thomas W. Giles, who was sworn as a witness in the cause, to swear untruly in support of his demand; and that for this purpose he used various artifices, and promised to share with him the amount to be recovered. There is no question, but that if a decree be obtained by fraud, it may be set aside on an original bill for that purpose. The only question is, whether the ' defendant can avail himself of this by his answer, so as to resist the performance of the decree. I am of opinion that he cannot.”
    The Court accordingly refused to hear the defendant on that point, and ruled that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree. And the defendant appeals on the following ground:
    That the Court ought not to give relief, by giving active efficacy to a decree, which the defendant alleges was obtained by fraud, until it has heard the evidence ; and if the evidence supports the defence, the Court should refuse to revive the decree on the ground that the Court will not lend its aid to make a fraud successful.
    
      Hunt, for appellant.
    
      Peronneau, Mazyck and Finley, contra.
   Harper, Chancellor.

The Court concur with the Chancellor, that the matters put in issue by the answer are precisely the same as those recorded in the original proceeding, and cannot therefore avail the defendant, by the way of answer to this bill. If it can in any event avail the defendant, it can only be on a bill to set aside the decree for the fraud complained of, and that course of proceeding is the only one recognized by the precedents. Motion dismissed, and the decree of the Circuit Court is affirmed.  