Consent decree challenged for fraud or coercion may be attacked by separate suit; failed review does not bar later proceedings.

A consent decree impeached for fraud, misrepresentation, coercion or undue influence should ordinarily be challenged by a separate suit, because such allegations require a fuller inquiry into the validity of consent than review proceedings permit. The Court distinguished mere clerical or obvious errors, where review may be appropriate, from vitiating factors affecting the agreement itself. It also held that an unsuccessful review application does not bar a later suit on the same substantive grounds, because review is not a suit for res judicata purposes and is not an inconsistent election of remedies. The preliminary dismissal was therefore set aside and the matter remitted for decision on the merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a consent decree impeached on grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, coercion or undue influence should be challenged by review of judgment or by a separate suit; (ii) whether an unsuccessful application for review bars a subsequent suit by res judicata or election of remedies.

Issue (i): Whether a consent decree impeached on grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, coercion or undue influence should be challenged by review of judgment or by a separate suit.

Analysis: A consent decree is founded on the parties' agreement and, when attacked for vitiating circumstances affecting the consent itself, the inquiry is distinct from the merits of the original controversy. The judgment distinguished cases involving clerical error or obvious irregularity, where review may be apt, from cases alleging fraud or similar vitiating causes, where a separate suit permits fuller investigation and appellate scrutiny. The Court also held that the authorities relied upon for the opposite view did not establish that review is the proper remedy for such grounds.

Conclusion: A separate suit is the appropriate remedy for impeaching a consent decree on the grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, coercion or undue influence.

Issue (ii): Whether an unsuccessful application for review bars a subsequent suit by res judicata or election of remedies.

Analysis: The Court held that an application for review is not a suit within the meaning of the res judicata provision and that the scope of review proceedings is not coextensive with a regular suit. The two remedies were held not to be inconsistent or alternative in the relevant sense, because both seek the same relief but the suit affords a more appropriate and complete inquiry. Accordingly, failure in review does not bar a later suit on the same substantive grounds.

Conclusion: The prior dismissal of the review application did not bar the present suit by res judicata or by election of remedies.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the preliminary dismissal was set aside, and the matter was sent back for decision on the merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A consent decree attacked for fraud or analogous vitiating factors should ordinarily be set aside by a fresh suit, and an unsuccessful review application does not preclude that suit because review proceedings are not a bar under res judicata and do not amount to an inconsistent election of remedies.

---