Sanders v. Rochester Fire District No. 1
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit. The cause was referred, with consent of parties, at the September Term, 1896, Rutland County. At the September Term, 1897, Munson, J., presiding, the plaintiff moved a revocation of the order of reference. The plaintiff had the right to revoke as a matter of law. Jeffers v. Hazen, 69 Yt. 456; Lazell v. Houghton, 32 Yt. 579; Rice v. Clark, 8 Yt. 104. The revision of 1894 was not intended to change the law in this respect.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit. The cause was referred, with consent of parties, at the September Term, 1896, Rutland County. At the September Term, 1897, Munson, J., presiding, the plaintiff moved a revocation of the order of reference. The plaintiff had the right to revoke as a matter of law. Jeffers v. Hazen, 69 Yt. 456; Lazell v. Houghton, 32 Yt. 579; Rice v. Clark, 8 Yt. 104. The revision of 1894 was not intended to change the law in this respect. R. L. 985, 986; V. S. 1437 — 1439; 1884 No. 129 § 1;, report of Revision Com. 1894; Clapham v. Higham, 1 Bing. 87. There was no right to revoke. The reference was…
1Opinion of the CourtTyler, J.
As this case was one in which the parties were entitled to a trial by jury, the court could not have made an order of reference without their consent; but after the order was made it stood and was to be regarded as any other *562order, judgment or decree of the court made with legal authority. The order was not revocable under the present statute until the next term of the court after the hearing had closed and the failure of the referee to make a report, or, having made one it was not accepted by the court. The motion was properly denied. V. S. 1437, 1438, 1439. Jeffers v. Hazen, 69 Vt. 456.
Judgm…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Jeffers v. HazenSupreme Court of Vermont · 1897
3Cited by1 opinion
- Estate of Jarboe v. JarboeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1910