Summary

Joseph P. Bradley Putnam v. Day — Opinion of the Court

If his counsel failed to make as good a defence for him as they might have done, it was his misfortune and cannot be rectified after the passing of the decree. Litigation would never come to an end if parties were permitted thus to shift their entire ground of attack or defence, after finding where the pinch of the cause lay. They must be estopped by the record, unless they can show that they were the victims of fraud or mistake.
Taking the cause, then, as it stood when the original decree was rendered, does the bill of review show any error for which it can be reversed?
Source: Wikisource

Joseph P. Bradley Putnam v. Day — Opinion of the Court

In the views there expressed, we think the court erred. We think the rule to be well established, and a wholesome one, that (as before stated) the proofs cannot be looked into on a bill of review. This was so expressly held in Whiting v. Bank of the United States. [4] It is true that in our practice the final decree does not contain a summary of the facts as it did in the English practice-which summary was examinable on a bill of review
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature