136 N.J. Eq. 361 | N.J. Ct. of Ch. | 1945
Some litigants are unable to acquiesce in the judgments that go against them. After a relatively lengthy hearing, the factual and equitable issues of this cause were very deliberately considered.
The defendant by petition now seeks a substantial alteration of the final decree. The procedure initiated by petition instead of by a bill of review was earnestly recommended by Vice-Chancellor Stevenson in Kearns v. Kearns,
The object, of course, of a bill of review is to procure the reversal, alteration, or explanation of a final decree in a former suit. 2 Dan. Ch. Pl. Pr., § 1576. However, the grounds on which it is maintainable and operative have been definitely declared, fundamentally by Lord Bacon's first ordinance (Traphagen v. Voorhees,
The present petition does not bear upon any of those grounds. Its purport is that the decree whereby it was resolved, upon the proofs, that the defendant by way of settlement voluntarily and intentionally vested the absolute and unqualified title of the property in his wife operates inequitably against the defendant, and should now be diversified to provide the defendant with a life estate in the property subject to the obligations of a life tenant, and a reversion of the title to him in the event his wife predecease him, or, as the petition states, supply "such other and different terms, provisions or conditions as to the court may seem to be just and equitable."
The following quotations excised from the opinion (percuriam) of the appellate court expose the infirmity of the defendant's present application:
"The facts material to a decision of the case are stated in the opinion of the Vice-Chancellor and will not be repeated here further than to say that the original purchase price was checked by Mrs. Strong to the vendor directly from her bank account: that the funds were placed there by the husband to enable her to acquire title in her name precisely as was done; that the record title was, by warranty deed without reservation or trust limitation, placed in Mrs. Strong with the full knowledge of and at the direction of her husband * * *."
"The proofs failed to convince the Court of Chancery and fail to convince us, that the conveyance to Mrs. Strong was not, at the time, intended by all the parties to that transaction, including Mr. Strong, to have the legal effect incident to the terms of such a conveyance."
It is immediately evident that the criticism now addressed to the decree is one that was manifestly within the scope of the appeal. Indeed, it is conspicuous that the intention, if any, of the defendant to retain an interest or estate in the premises was heretofore a subject of primary consideration both in this court and in the court of last resort, where the *364
fashion and equitableness of the decree were sustained.Eckhouse v. Berwyn Estates,
Where, however, the highest appellate court has on appeal sustained the propriety of a final decree of this court, a bill or petition of review is not thereafter maintainable in this court solely upon the ground that the cause was not well decided in that some other or different equitable relief might have been granted. Marvel v. Endicott,
An order will be advised dismissing the petition. *365
