Roger B. Taney,
Fourniquet v. Perkins (57 U.S. 82…
“ The court say that where new evidence is brought forward as a ground to change an interlocutory decree, the application must be made on motion, or notice to rehear the cause on the new evidence, or by petition for rehearing.The counsel for the defendant in error replied to this argument.The counsel for appellants concedes that an interlocutory decree continues subject to the chancellor's power to review, amend, or set aside, at any time before final decree; but he urges that the power must be rightfully exercised, or it becomes usurpation. ”
