
    CASE 68 — PETITION EQUITY —
    FEBRUARY 6.
    Peak, &c., vs. Percifull, &c.
    APPEAL FROM MEADE CIRCUIT COURT.
    1. A suit, brought to correct errors on the face of the dbcree and to perfect the title which it purported to pass, may be considered of the nature of a bill of review.
    2. Rendering a decree against infants, without legal notice or defense, and rendering a judgment in favor of an unsued intervenor, without service of process on, or appearance to, his cross-petition, without any order making him a party, are reviewable errors and good cause for revision and relief by the circuit court, without first appealing to the court of appeals.
    3. It is only when a-party defendant files a cross-petition against the party complainant that service of notice of the new and extraneous suit is not necessary.
    John C. Walker, For Appellants?
    CITED—
    1 Duvall, 125; Francis vs. Smith.
    
    
      Civil Code, section 125.
    M. H. Cofer, For Appellees.
   JUDGE ROBERTSON

delivered the opinion of the court :

This suit,’being brought to correct errors on the face of the decree, and to perfect the title which it purported to pass, may be considered of the nature of a bill of review. The record shows two such reviewable errors — 1st. In rendering a decree against infants without legal notice or defense; and, 2d. In rendering judgment in favor of Percifull’s administrator without service of process on, or appearance to', his cross-petition as an unsued intervenor, and without any order making him a party. It is only when a party defendant files a cross-petition against the party complainant that service of notice of the new and extraneous suit is not necessary. For these errors, it seems to us that the petition shows a good cause for revision and relief by the circuit court, without first appealing to this court.

Wherefore, the judgment, dismissing the petition as ■unsustainable on its face, is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings.  