Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/213

GIANT POWDER CO. V, CAL. VIGOEIT POWDEB CO, 201 �and the time the deeree took a definitive shape by enroUment, it was open to modification and correction, and eren to entire change. But when once enrolled the deeree was net subject to change except in the house of lords, or by a bill of review. 2 DanieU'a Chancery Practice, 1018. �In this country there is not, except, perhaps, in one or two states where the old forms of equity practice are retained, any such proceeding as the formai enroUment of deerees. Here, when a case in equity is decided, a deeree is drawn up and signed by the judge, and entered on the records of the ^oun, with about the same formality as a judgment in a case at law. And rehearings are then granted, except when the judge acts of his own motion, only upon such grounds as would authorize a new trial in an action in law; that is, for newly- discovered evidence or errors of law apparent upon the rec- ord. Ail the limitations which control courts in actions ai law, in considering allegations of newly-discovered evidence and of errors at law, apply to applications for rehearing in such cases. Bentley v. Phclps, 3 W. & M. 403. See,' also, Doggett v. Emerson, 1 "W. & M. 1 ; Emerson v. Daniels, Id. 21; Tufts V. Tufts, 3 W. & M. 426; and also Clapp v. Thax- ter, 7 Gray, 386. �The course of procedure for the complainant, therefore, is to file its petition with the clerk of the circuit court at San Francisco, and obtain from the court or circuit judge an order upon the defendants to show cause on the foUowing rule day, or some other day mentioned, why its prayer should not h& granted. The defendants can then answer the petition, and upon the petition and answer the application can be heard. A rehearing should not be granted for newly-discovered evi- dence where the evidencq could have been obtained by reason- able diligence on the first hearing, nor when it is merely cumulative to that previously received, nor when, if presented, it would not have changed the resuit. And as to errors of law, they should be such as are olearly shown by considera- tions nOt previously presented. A new hearing should not be had simply to allow a rehash of old arguments. The proper remedy for errors of the court on points argued in the first ����