
    The Inhabitants of Stockbridge, Petitioners, &c., versus the Inhabitants of West Stockbridge.
    It is within the legitimate powers of the Court to grant a review of an action in which judgment has been rendered upon a case stated and agreed by the parties.
    This was a petition for a review of an action which was decided between these parties at the last September term. {Vide Ante, voi. xii. page 400.]
    The petitioners set forth in their petition, that Mr. Williams, whose deposition was used in the former hearing, was, at the time of his testifying, a very aged 'and infirm man, and since that time has died ; that, since his death, and since the judgment in the original action, there had been found among his papers, by his executors, a bill of sale of Frank Duncan, respecting whose settlement in West Stockbridge the parties were at issue ; by which it appears, that the said Williams testified under a mistake, and that the said Duncan was his slave, and was, therefore, lawfully settled in said West Stock-bridge.
    
    The petitioners produced the said bill of sale, by which William Bott, of JVew Jersey, on the 2d of April, 1770, in consideration of £ 100 paid him by the said Williams, sold him the said Duncan, then about 25 years of age, to hold to him, his executors, &c., during the natural life of the said Duncan, with a covenant of warranty.
    
      Whiting and Howe, for .the respondents,
    objected to the petition, that the petitioners, having been plaintiffs in the * action, should have used more diligence in searching for a paper so important in their opinion to the support of their demand.  An application for a review, in this case, rests on very different grounds from a case arising upon a valuable consideration, or involving a moral obligation. Cases of settlement are cases of strict law ; and the only question in the case now before the Court is, whether the defendants or the Commonwealth shall support the pauper. For there is no pretence of an obligation upon the plaintiffs ; and, if this pauper is not settled in West Stockbridge, he has no settlement within the State, and is one of the Commonwealth’s poor. 
    
    But this is an application of a novel impression. The cause has been determined by the Court upon an agreed statement of facts, in which the judges have acted rather as arbitrators selected by the parties than as a court of law. If it is within the power of the Court to set aside the judgment, it is humbly submitted, that they have no power to annul the agreement of the parties, on which that judgment was rendered, without their consent.
    
      Jlshmun, for the petitioners.
    There is nothing of system in the granting of new trials. The application in each case is to the sound discretion of the Court. There is no greater objection to the granting a review of a judgment grounded on a case stated than on a special verdict.  There is no higher evidence of the facts in one case than in the other. It is every day’s practice with this Court to discharge a stated case, when one party has discovered a fact material to his cause, and which was not known to him at the time of stating the case ; unless the other party will agree to insert such fact
    The petitioners have all the rights, and all the merits, in this action, which can be derived from a solemn act of the legislature humanely providing for the support of the indigent, whether with or without a home, and for this object establishing a set of rules operating on the whole with equal and perfect justice.
    
      
       1 D. & E. 84.-2 D. & E 113. —1 Salk. 273. — Sayer, 27.-8 Mod. 2.-7 Mod 156.
    
    
      
       2 Salk. 647.
    
    
      
      
        Bac. Abr. Tit. Trial, L. 1.
    
   * By the Court.

We have no doubt of our authority to grant a review in this case. Nor do we perceive any reason against such an application as the present, which does not equally apply to a judgment rendered upon a verdict.

Where parties have been entrapped or misled into an agreement, and without laches on their part, or if, within the time limited by statute for the granting of reviews, they discover a fact misstated or omitted, it is as much within the legitimate powers of the Court as to discharge a statement for a similar cause pending the action.

The petitioners in this case cannot be charged with the want of due diligence. They could not obtain the paper now produced until it was furnished them by Mr. Williams',s executors ; and they have certainly been prompt enough in their application to the Court since they did obtain it.

But, as the respondents have been in no fault, it would be unjust to subject them to the costs of the former suit, if the petitioners should be successful on the review ; let the costs be subject to the direction of the Court, and upon those terms let the petitioners take their review.  