IV. The petition to vacate judgment on grounds of fraud should not have been dismissed. Brown v. Wesson, 114 Miss. 232, 74 So. 831; Levengood v. Munns (Ind.), 27 N.E.2d 95; United States v. Metal Process Co. (Ohio), 57 F. Supp. 317; Williams v. Williams, 176 Miss. 251, 169 So. 27; 31 Am. Jur., Secs. 670, 673 pp. 239-40; Griffith's Miss. Chancery Practice, Secs. 643, 644 pp. 707, 708. Young Daniel, Jackson; Teller Biedenharn, Vicksburg, for appellee.
III. Bills of review are not favored in equity, and do not lie for purposes of impeachment or where there is a lack of due diligence. Foy v. Foy, 25 Miss. 212; Imbragulio v. Herbert, 171 Miss. 505, 158 So. 138; Moore v. Chicago, St. L. N.O.R.R. Co., 59 Miss. 243; Redmond v. Marshall, 162 Miss. 359, 137 So. 733; Southard v. Russell, 16 How. 547, 14 L.Ed. 1052; Vanderburg v. Campbell, 64 Miss. 89, 8 So. 206; Williams v. Williams, 176 Miss. 251, 169 So. 27; Griffith's Miss. Chancery Practice, Sec. 640. IV.
The case of Imbragulio v. Hubert, 171 Miss. 505, 158 So. 138, also holds that bills of review are not favored and there must be sound reason for allowing them. The court, in the case of Williams v. Williams, 176 Miss. 251, 169 So. 27, stated: ". . . The allowance of a bill of review for newly discovered evidence is within the sound discretion of the court to be exercised by legal rules, . . ." It is stated in 19 Am. Jur. 439 that: "The granting of a bill of review in those cases where leave of court is required, as, for example, for newly discovered evidence or new matter, is within the sound discretion of the court. . . ."