State ex rel. Webster v. Johnson
Supreme Court of Missouri
Prohibition. (1) The appointment of respondent as referee was illegal, improper, and in violation of relator’s statutory right and he is without jurisdiction in the premises. (2) The referee is not merely an adding machine — he is a separate judicial tribunal. In stating an account he must decide what items are to be included in that account and what excluded. This involves the exercise of a judicial power. It has been uniformly held that a referee is a court in himself.
Read the full summary
Prohibition. (1) The appointment of respondent as referee was illegal, improper, and in violation of relator’s statutory right and he is without jurisdiction in the premises. (2) The referee is not merely an adding machine — he is a separate judicial tribunal. In stating an account he must decide what items are to be included in that account and what excluded. This involves the exercise of a judicial power. It has been uniformly held that a referee is a court in himself. Cemetery Ass’n v. Woodruff, 2 Disney, 216; Plant v. Fleming, 20 Cal. 92; Downer v. Downer, 11 Vt. 395. (3) They have power…
1Opinion of the CourtGantt, P. J.
This is an application for a writ of prohibition to prevent the respondent Edward P. Johnson from proceeding to take an account as referee by virtue of an interlocutory decree rendered by the circuit court of the city of St. Louis in a certain cause wherein Marshall P. Sanguinette and Annie, his wife, *107are plaintiffs, and Webster and Flanagan are defendants.
From the averment of the petition it appears that the suit is one in equity for an accounting, and that upon a hearing the court made a finding of the issues for plaintiffs and among other things decreed and ordered as follows: “And the…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Durwood v. DubinskySupreme Court of Missouri · 1956
- Sanguinett v. WebsterSupreme Court of Missouri · 1900
- Kline Cloak & Suit Co. v. MorrisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1922
- Durwood v. DubinskySupreme Court of Missouri · 1956
- State ex informatione Crow v. LundSupreme Court of Missouri · 1902