Brown v. Clay
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Covenant broken. The action was referred to the Hon. Ashur Ware, by a rule of court, containing no restriction upon his powers, as referee. His award was made in favor of the plaintiff, for $ 1548,60 damage, with costs of court, and of reference. At the request of the defendant’s counsel, the referee put into writing an exposition of the views and considerations upon which the award was founded. It was under the caption of “Mem. for counsel, in the case of Brown v. Clay.”
Read the full summary
Covenant broken. The action was referred to the Hon. Ashur Ware, by a rule of court, containing no restriction upon his powers, as referee. His award was made in favor of the plaintiff, for $ 1548,60 damage, with costs of court, and of reference. At the request of the defendant’s counsel, the referee put into writing an exposition of the views and considerations upon which the award was founded. It was under the caption of “Mem. for counsel, in the case of Brown v. Clay.” It was without signature, and the award contained no reference to it, moved that the award be set aside, and urged the…
1Opinion of the Court
Upon the first point, Wells, J. delivered the opinion of the court, orally.
The question presented, relates to the poAver of the court, over awards of referees, when said to be decided upon erroneous views of the law.
The referee, at the request of the defendant’s counsel, has furnished an exposition of the legal views, upon which he acted. But it is not made a part of the award, nor adverted to in it. There are no conditions, no alternatives in the award.
It is contended that the referee erred in relation to a position in laAV, in construing the contract betAveen the parties; and that that…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Wilson v. WilsonSupreme Court of Colorado · 1893
- Mathews v. MillerWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1885
- Myers v. York & C. R. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maine · 1854