Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
NICKLE and Another v. STEWART and Another, 1884 — 111 U.S. 776 · caselaw · US
General
NICKLE and Another v. STEWART and Another
111 U.S. 77628 L. Ed. 599·Supreme Court of the United States·1884
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
NICKLE and Another v. STEWART and Another.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF- THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WFST VIRGINIA.
Argued April 17th, 1884.
Decided May 5th, 1884.
Review.
A bill presented as a bill of review showing no errors of law on the face of the record and not alleging a discovery of new' matter since the rendering of the decree, the court below properly refused leave to file it.
Mr. J. W. Davis for appellants.
No appearance for appellees.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Chief Justice Waite]
Mr. Chief Justice Waite
delivered the'opinion of the court.
Without intending to decide that an appeal lies to this court from an order óf a circuit court, or of a district court exercising circuit court powers, refusing leave to file a bill of review, we hold that the refusal in this case was right.. The bill as presented has none of the characteristics of a bill of review. No errors of law appearing on the face of the record are assigned, and there is no allegation of any discovery of new matter since the decree was rendered.
Affirmed.