PURCELL V. MINER

• Court: U.S. Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: Justia & Oyez
• Citation: PURCELL V. MINER, 71 U.S. 519 (1866)
• Decision Date: 01 January 1866

Purcell v. Miner

71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 519

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Syllabus

After the decision above made, the complainant, Purcell, asked leave of this Court to file a petition for a bill of review in the court below. He had already asked in that court, leave to file such a petition, but the leave was not granted.

The petition asked the leave on two grounds.

The first ground consisted in the material evidence which it

Page 71 U. S. 520

was said could be given by Purcell himself, he being rendered competent to testify in his own behalf since the final decree in March, 1864, by the Act of Congress of 2 July, 1864, which, for the first time, enabled parties to testify in their own cases. And it being alleged that the new evidence which he would be able to give would establish:

1st. The clear and definite terms of the contract of exchange.

2d. Part performance of the verbal contract, by each party taking possession of the exchanged property in execution of the contract, and by improvements made.

3d. The tender of a deed of conveyance from the petitioner to Coleman, and his refusal to accept it.

All which facts it was alleged were in the exclusive knowledge of the petitioner.

Besides this new evidence, the petition set forth newly discovered evidence by one Calvert, and others, tending to show distinct and unequivocal acts of possession, by Coleman, of the farm in Virginia, and his improvements thereon under, and in pursuance of the contract of exchange.

MR. JUSTICE GRIER delivered the opinion of the Court.

We have just decided this case and affirmed the judgment below because by the complainant's own statement in his bill he has shown no sufficient grounds for a court of equity to grant him the relief sought. We will not repeat the points there decided. The case was too plain to leave any possible doubt respecting the correctness of our decision. Moreover, the record showed an application made in the court below, before the appeal to this Court, for a bill of review, which was decided by this Court to have been properly refused. But it seems that the appellant is not satisfied with the judgment of the Court, and

Page 71 U. S. 521

now makes an application to the court for leave to file another bill of review in the court below.

We have no doubt that the complainant honestly believes that he has been greatly wronged by the defendant below, who has taken the liberty of breaking his promise with regard to a parol contract for an exchange of property with the complainant, but we had supposed that in the opinion just delivered, we had shown clearly to the satisfaction...