Boyden v. Reed

Citations

• 55 Ill. 458

Syllabus

<p>1. Bill of review—and bill to impeach a decree for fraud. A hill of review may be brought upon the discovery of new matter, but it must be material and relevant, and such as, if known, would probably have produced a different termination from that reached in the former decree sought to be impeached. It must generally be new matter, to prove what was before iu issue—not to make a new case, but to establish the old one.</p> <p>2. But the general rule is, that evidence which tends simply to impeach testimony given in the former case will not be regarded as sufficient to sustain a bill of review.</p> <p>3. And the matter must not only be new, but it must be such that the party, by the use of reasonable diligence, could not have known of before the former hearing, so as to have produced it at that time.</p> <p>4. If a decree has been obtained by fraud, it may be impeached by original bill, and where a decree has been so obtained, the court will restore the parties to their former rights, whatever they may be.</p> <p>5. But it is not enough to allege and prove, that false testimony was, in fact, heard at the time the former decree was pronounced. If the ground of the relief sought be, that the decree was obtained by means of false testimony procured to be given by the party in whose favor the decree was rendered, it must appear, in addition to the fact that false testimony was heard, that its absence would, in all probability, have produced a different result.</p> <p>6. It seems to be no objection to a bill, that it partakes of the nature both of a bill of review, on the ground of new matter discovered after the former decree, and a bill of review in the nature of an original bill, to impeach a decree on the ground of fraud.</p>