Spencer v. Usher
Supreme Court of Connecticut
In the Court below, HP JL HIS wqs an action of account, declaring, that the plaintiff had delivered to the defendant, for collection, a promissory note, payable to Justin Worthington, and assigned to the plaintiff; and that the defendant had collected the money, but had rendered no account. On the issue of never bailiff and receiver, the jury found for the plaintiff; and the Court rendered judgment, quod comfiulet.
Read the full summary
In the Court below, HP JL HIS wqs an action of account, declaring, that the plaintiff had delivered to the defendant, for collection, a promissory note, payable to Justin Worthington, and assigned to the plaintiff; and that the defendant had collected the money, but had rendered no account. On the issue of never bailiff and receiver, the jury found for the plaintiff; and the Court rendered judgment, quod comfiulet. The auditors reported in favour of the defendant in these words : We have examined and adjusted the accounts be- “ tween the plaintiff and defendant, concerning the premis- « es,…
1Opinion of the Court
The Court unanimously affirmed the judgment.
Ells-worth, Asst,
expressed a clear opinion, that the principles, oh which auditors proceed, may be inquired into, to the extent of the rule in Parker v. Avery, which settled the point with precision, and ought to be regarded as a governing *121ease. lie observed, that trials before auditors were partial-larly distinguished in this respect, that there is no court to regulate the admission of evidence, or to instruct the auditors in a point of law ; and that, of consequence, their award could not be assimilated to the verdict of a jury.
2Cited by4 opinions
- Webster v. MerriamSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1832
- Lee v. AbramsIllinois Supreme Court · 1850
- Day v. LockwoodSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1855
- Seymour Trust Co. v. HershowitzSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1925