Brown v. Scott
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
RULE to shew cause why the report of referrees should not be set aside. The facts were these:—Four actions had been brought upon four promisory notes, and the parties, being willing to refer them, by a written agreement entered a fifth action on the docket, in order to take in another note, which had become due since the return of the preceeding writs and accordingly the whole were referred to persons nominated by the Court, a rule for that purpose being taken out in each…
Read the full summary
RULE to shew cause why the report of referrees should not be set aside. The facts were these:—Four actions had been brought upon four promisory notes, and the parties, being willing to refer them, by a written agreement entered a fifth action on the docket, in order to take in another note, which had become due since the return of the preceeding writs and accordingly the whole were referred to persons nominated by the Court, a rule for that purpose being taken out in each action. The parties were heard before the referrees, and the report agreed upon, when a difficulty occurred, how to…
1Opinion of the Court
the President delivered the opinion of the Court as follows:
Shippen, President.
The justice and fairness of the transaction, on the part of the plaintiff, is so obvious; and the consent of the parties to consolidate the actions, is so naturally implied from the whole of the proceedings, that my brethren* think the report ought to be confirmed.
For myself, I doubt the legality of it, because I do not see how it is possible to enter judgment upon the report so as to avoid error. The consolidation of actions is intended to save expence, and might have been ordered by the Court on motion; but this…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Craig v. CraigSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1827