
    Campbell v. Price and Others.
    Wednesday, April 1st, 1812.
    Decree ot Court of Appeals — Apparent Error — Correction. — The Court of Chancery cannot correct on motion, or by bill of review, any error, apparent on the face of the proceedings, in a decree which has been affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
    After the affirmance, by the Court of Appeals, on the 15th of November, 1799, of the late Chancellor Wythe’s decree in this case, (bearing date the 14th of March, 1797, for which see Price v. Campbell, 2 Call, 116,) it was discovered that a mistake had been committed in that decree; the sum decreed being currency when it should have been sterling money; as incontestibly appeared from the documents spread on the record. The Chancellor “being of opinion that such an error, discoverable at the first glance, might be corrected without a formal procedure by bill of review,” made an order, on motion, to that effect on the 6th of March, 1800. Upon an appeal, this order was reversed by this Court, *the 15th of May, 1804, without any reason assigned. The plaintiff (Campbell) was, on the 8th of June following, allowed, by leave of the Court of Chancery, to file a bill for reviewing, as well the decree pronounced the 14th of March, 1797, as the order made the 6th of March, 1800, setting forth in his bill the error above mentioned in the original decree, and that the correction thereof by the Chancellor had been disapproved by the Court of Appeals, merely “because it had not been done by means of a bill of review. ” To this bill the defendant demurred; and the cause coming on to be heard the 27th of February, 1809, Chancellor Taylor dismissed the bill with costs; “being of opinion, that after an affirmance of a decree by the Court of Appeals, a bill of review should not be received, but for new matter which could not be produced or used by the party claiming the benefit of it at the time when the decree was pronounced, and proved to have been discovered since; and not for errors of law, or fact, which appear upon the face of the proceedings and decree.” Whereupon, the plaintiff appealed to this Court.
    Williams, for the appellant.
    Warden, for the appellee.
    
      
       Decree of Court of Appeals — Apparent Error — Correction. — Where the court of appeals makes a decree, and sends the canse back for further proceedings, there cannot be a bill of review to correct the decree of the court of appeals for error apparent. Henry v. Davis, 13 W. Va. 252, citing principal case; White v. Atkinson, 2 Call 376; Price v. Campbell, 5 Call 115; McCall v. Graham, 1 Hen. & M. 13; Bank of Va. v. Craig, 6 Leigh 399: Towner v. Lane, 9 Leigh 202; Newman v. Mollohan, 10 W. Va. 488; Western, M. & M. Co. v. Va. C. C. Co., 10 W. Va. 250; Pinkney v. Jay. 12 Gill & J. 69. To the same effect, the principal case is cited in Reid v. Strider, 7 Gratt. 82; Campbell v. Campbell, 22 Gratt. 666: N. Y. Life Ins. Co. v. Clemmitt. 77 Va. 374; foot-note to White v. Atkinson, 2 Call 376: foot-note to McCall v. Graham, 1 Hen. & M. 13; foot-note to Towner v. Lane. 9 Leigh 262. But there may be such a bill to •correct the decree on the ground of after-discovered evidence. Campbell v. Campbell, 22 Gratt. 674. citing the principal case to the same efiect. The principal ca.se is cited in Reid v. Strider, 7 Gratt. 83; foot-note to Randolph v. Randolph, 1 Hen. & M. 181. See further, monographic note on “Appeal and Error” appended to Hill v. Salem, etc., Turnpike Co., 1 Rob. 263; monographic note on “Bills of Review” appended to Campbell v. Campbell. 22 Gratt. 649; monographic note on “Decrees” appended to Evans v. Spurgin, 11 Gratt. 615.
    
    
      
       Note. See Winston v. Johnson’s executors, 2 Munf. 305-310.
    
   Thursdav, April 2d, the president reported the opinion of the Court, that after a decree of the Court of Chancery has been affirmed by the Court of Appeals, a bill of review cannot be received, on the ground of any error in the decree, which is apparent on the face of the record.

Decree dismissing the bill of review affirmed.  