
    *White v. Atkinson.
    [October Term, 1800.]
    Chancery Court -Altering Decree oí Appellate Court,— The Court of Chancery cannot make any alteration in the terms of a decree of this Court certified thither in order that a final decree may be made in the cause.
    See the statement and decree in this case, in 2 Wash. 94 to 106. Upon the cause going back, in pursuance of the decree of this court, to the Court of Chancery: That court, after the issue directed, had been tried, made the following decree.
    “By the verdict certified to have been found upon trial of the issue, between the plaintiff and the defendant Roger Atkinson, directed by the decree of the fourteenth day of March, in the year 1796, the 487 acres of land, mentioned in the said decree, appearing to have been worth seven shillings and six pence by the acre, on the last day of September 1779, the court this 13th of September 1797, doth adjudge, order and decree, that the plaintiff do pay unto the defendant Roger Atkinson ¿£167. 12. 6., being, with the eighteen pounds paid by the plaintiff, the value of the land aforesaid, with interest thereupon to be computed, after the rate of five per centum per annum, from the said last day of December 1779, and that upon such payment, the defendant Roger Atkinson do seal and deliver, to the plaintiff, a sufficient conveyance of the said land, with a covenant for general warranty of the title: The Court of Appeals when they declared this court to have erred in decreeing to the defendant Roger Atkinson the value of the money at the time appointed for payment thereof, instead of the value of the land, at the time of contract, and in not allowing to the plaintiff the option of abandoning his claim, and losing the eighteen pounds, which he had paid, and the value of improvements, which he might have made, and when they corrected the decree in both instances, but in the former only, in case ^either party should choose at his own expense, another trial to ascertain the value of the land are supposed not to have intended, that the plaintiff in case of abandonment, should make no satisfaction for occupation of the land in the meantime : And therefore this court doth further adjudge, order and decree, that the plaintiff, if he will not accept the conveyance aforesaid, do resign to the defendant Roger Atkinson possession of the land aforesaid on the last day of December in the present year; and for occupation of the land aforesaid, pay that defendant the annual interest upon the said ¿£164. 12. 6., to be computed from the said last day of December 1779, and that the plaintiff do pay unto that defendant the further costs expended by him &c. ” From which decree White appealed to this court.
    Randolph for the appellant.
    The Court of Chancery could not decree an account of the profits, as this Court had made no provision for them. Because that court can only execute the decrees of this according to the letter; and cannot extend them, on a presumption that this court would have provided for the additional relief, if the supposed necessity of it had been foreseen. Perhaps a bill of review might lie; but it was clearly out of the power of the Court of Chancery, as the proceedings stood, to afford any other relief, than the decree of this court had prescribed.
    Call contra.
    Although the Court of Chancery cannot decree against the direction of this court, yet it may decree consistently with them.
    In the present case no direction was given, as to the profits; and therefore the Court of Chancery might provide for them, in consequence of the new circumstance of the abandonment having occurred. The Court of Chancery is to decree according to the principles of the decree here; which necessarily supposes, that it is to have power to ^provide for the unforeseen contingencies which may take place, during the details of the business. If a bill of review would have lain for that purpose, it is decisive; because, whilst the cause was still unfinished and the parties in court, the Chancellor might proceed to do effectual justice, without the formality of a bill of review ; the only object of which is, to apprize the court of the new facts.
    Randolph. The difference would have been, that on a bill of review, White might have rebutted with new matter.
    Call: That would not be material in a case like this; because the parties would have to go before a master, who would report the special matter.
    
      
      Court of Appeals — Decree of — Correction.—Wben the court of appeals makes a decree, and sends the cause back for further proceedings, there cannot be a bill of review, to correct the decree of the court of appeals for error apparent. Davis v. Henry, 18 W. Va. 252, citing the principal case; Price v. Campbell, 5 Call 115; McCall v. Graham, 1 Hen. & M. 13; Campbell v. Price, 3 Munf. 227: Bank of Virginia v. Craig, 6 Leigh 399; Towner v. Larie, 9 Leigh 262; Newman v. Mollohan, 10 W. Va. 488: Western M. & M. Co. v. Va. C. C. Co., 10 W. Va. 250; Pinkey v. Jay, 12 Gill & J. 69.
      The principal case is cited and approved in Harmon v. Bowyer, 15 W. Va. 544; Cady v. Gale, 5 W. Va. 507; Campbell v. Campbell, 22 Gratt. 666; Price v. Campbell, 5 Call 116, 117; M'Call v. Graham, 1 Hen. & M. 14; New York Life Ins. Co. v. Clemmitt, 77 Va. 374; Frazier v. Frazier, 77 Va. 784.
    
   Per Cur.

The Court is of opinion, that if the provision in the said decree, in the case of abandonment, had been proper, it ought to have gone further, and allowed the appellant the eighteen pounds, paid by him, and satisfaction for stable improvements also; but that the said High Court of Chancery was precluded, by the former decree of this court from changing the terms of abandonment. Therefore, so much of the decree, as makes such change is to be reversed with costs ; and the residue affirmed.  