Definition
A bill for a new trial is an equitable pleading filed in a court of equity seeking two forms of relief: (1) an injunction against the enforcement of a judgment already entered at law, and (2) a new trial in the original action. The bill lies where some fact exists that makes it unconscionable to execute the judgment, but which the aggrieved party was unable to raise at the law trial — either because it was genuinely unavailable at that time, or because fraud or accident prevented its presentation, provided the party was not at fault or negligent in failing to bring it forward.
The remedy is equitable in nature. Its function was not to correct legal error committed during the trial itself — that was the province of motions for new trial and writs of error — but to address circumstances external to the trial process that rendered enforcement of the resulting judgment inequitable.
Common Confusion
A bill for a new trial is frequently conflated with a motion for a new trial. The distinction is structural and jurisdictional, not merely procedural. A motion for a new trial is filed in the same court that rendered the judgment, before that court's jurisdiction is exhausted, and addresses errors that occurred within the trial — misdirection of the jury, newly discovered evidence subject to due diligence requirements, and similar in-court defects. A bill for a new trial, by contrast, is a separate original suit filed in a court of equity against the prevailing party at law. It does not ask the law court to reconsider; it asks equity to restrain enforcement of the law court's judgment and to compel a fresh proceeding. The two remedies operated in parallel court systems and were not interchangeable. Researchers encountering either term in historical sources must confirm which proceeding is meant before drawing conclusions about procedure or relief available.
Why It Matters in Research
This term belongs to an era of dual court systems — law and equity operating as distinct jurisdictions — that no longer exists in most American and English jurisdictions. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (1938) merged law and equity in federal courts, and most states followed. As a result, the bill for a new trial as a freestanding equitable action has largely been superseded by post-judgment motions under rules of civil procedure.
Researchers working in pre-merger materials must be alert to this. A bill for a new trial found in nineteenth-century equity reports is a full adversarial proceeding with its own pleadings, parties, and potential for appeal — not a motion practice artifact. Conflating it with modern motion practice produces serious misreadings of procedural history.
The fraud-or-accident requirement carries particular research significance. Equity courts imposed strict conditions: the party seeking the bill had to demonstrate that the fact or circumstance was unavailable through no fault of their own. Negligence or neglect by the party or their agents defeated the bill. This limitation distinguishes the remedy from broader modern standards for new trial motions based on newly discovered evidence, and researchers comparing historical and modern standards should not assume equivalence.
The corpus of chancery practice materials — including treatises, equity pleading forms, and reported equity decisions — is the primary research environment for this term. Black's and Bouvier's are both drawing from that tradition. Researchers should also note that state equity practice varied, and some states with separate equity courts developed their own procedural glosses on when the bill would lie.
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's and Bouvier's agree on the essential structure: this is an equity proceeding, the relief sought is injunction plus new trial, and the triggering condition is a fact that makes execution of the law judgment unconscionable and which was unavailable to the party at law. Bouvier cites Mitford's Equity Pleading as the foundational authority, which places the definition firmly in the classical English equity tradition. Black's language — "fraud or accident, without concurrent fraud" on the part of the applicant — tracks the same standard, emphasizing that equity would not rescue a party whose own conduct contributed to the situation.
Neither dictionary grapples with the procedural obsolescence of the remedy following court merger reforms, which is expected given the periods of their primary editions. Researchers should treat both definitions as accurate descriptions of historical equity practice rather than statements of current procedure. What the historical dictionaries do not address is the transitional period in American jurisdictions where some states retained separate equity courts well into the twentieth century, making the bill for a new trial a live procedural tool far longer than the federal model suggests.
Jurisdictional Note
In federal courts and most states, the merger of law and equity eliminated the bill for a new trial as a distinct procedural vehicle. The relief it formerly provided is now sought through post-judgment motions, motions to vacate under rules analogous to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), or independent equitable actions where authorized by rule. A small number of jurisdictions retained separate equity proceedings longer than others; research into state court practice before the mid-twentieth century should not assume merger occurred on the federal timeline.