It must be borne in mind that there were now two appeals in this case to the Supreme Court of the State from the Superior Court.  One taken on the 25th of February, 1885, from the judgment of Judge Sullivan, and from his order for alimony and fees, and the other an appeal taken October 4, 1886, from the order denying the new trial in the cause.

On the 31st of January, 1888, the Supreme Court rendered its decision, affirming the judgment of the Superior Court in favor of Sarah Althea, but reversing the order made by Judge Sullivan granting counsel fees, and reducing the allowance for alimony from $2,500 per month to $500.  Four judges concurred in this decision, namely, McKinstry, Searles, Patterson, and Temple.  Three judges dissented, to wit, Thornton, Sharpstein, and McFarland.

There then remained pending in the same court the appeal from the order granting a new trial.  It was reasonable that Terry should expect a favorable decision on this appeal, as soon as it could be reached.  This accomplished, he and Sarah Althea thought to enter upon the enjoyment of the great prize for which they had contended with such desperate energy.  Terry had always regarded the decree of the Circuit Court as a mere harmless expression of opinion, which there would be no attempt to enforce, and which the state courts would wholly ignore.  Whatever force it might finally be given by the Supreme Court of the United States appeared to him a question far in the future, for he supposed he had taken an appeal from the decree.  This attempted appeal was found to be without effect, because when ordered the suit had abated by the death of the plaintiff, and no appeal could be taken until the case was revived by order of the court.  This order was never applied for.  The two years within which an appeal could have been taken expired January 15, 1888.  The decree of the Circuit Court had therefore become final at that time.

CHAPTER VII.

THE BILL OF REVIVOR.

It was at this stage of the prolonged legal controversy that Justice Field first sat in the case.  The executor of the Sharon estate, on the 12th of March, 1888, filed a bill of revivor in the United States Circuit Court.  This was a suit to revive the case of Sharon vs.  Hill, that its decree might stand in the same condition and plight in which it was at the time of its entry, which, being nunc pro tunc, was of the same effect as if the entry had preceded the death of Mr. Sharon, the case having been argued and submitted during his lifetime.  The decree directed the surrender and cancellation of the forged marriage certificate, and perpetually enjoined Sarah Althea Hill, and her representatives, from alleging the genuineness or validity of that instrument, or making any use of the same in evidence, or otherwise to support any rights claimed under it.