Eddy v. Sprague
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit, upon the warranty of a horse. This case was referred by the .county court, by agreement of the parties, and the referees reported in favor of the plain? tiff.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, upon the warranty of a horse. This case was referred by the .county court, by agreement of the parties, and the referees reported in favor of the plain? tiff. They stated in their report that they did not find that the defendant warranted the horse in question, but that their decision was made upon the ground pf defendant’s represen? tations, that - the horse was docile and manageable, when he knew the fact to be otherwise that the defendant objected to the admission of testimony, designed to prove a false rep? resentation merely, but that they admitted the testimony, sub? ject to…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Redfield, J.
The only question which arises in this case is, whether the report of the referees is within the rule of reference. This mode of trial is not very different from that by arbitrators. The award of the referees is to be accepted or rejected by the court, upon the same grounds which determine the validity of an award of arbitrators.
At common law, the parties had no power to refer, by rule of court, any other matter except the very suit pending. By the statute of 9 and 10 W. 3. c. 15. §1. it is provided, that the parties may refer to…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Clifford v. RichardsonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1846
- Briggs v. OaksSupreme Court of Vermont · 1853
- White v. WhiteSupreme Court of Vermont · 1849
- Kimball v. Estate of BaxterSupreme Court of Vermont · 1854
- Spaulding v. WarrenSupreme Court of Vermont · 1853
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.