Mott v. Anthony
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
On the return of the writ of error, which issued in this case to the Court of Common Pleas for this county, the record of a judgment was sent up, by which the defendant in error recovered against the plaintiff in error, two dollars and seventy-two cents damages, with costs of suit.
Read the full summary
On the return of the writ of error, which issued in this case to the Court of Common Pleas for this county, the record of a judgment was sent up, by which the defendant in error recovered against the plaintiff in error, two dollars and seventy-two cents damages, with costs of suit. The judgment was rendered upon a report of referees, made tinder a rule of submission of all demands between the parties, acknowledged by them, May 1, 1807, before a justice of the peace for this county, pursuant to the statute of 1786, c. 21. From the record it appears that the referees agreed upon and subscribed…
1Opinion of the CourtParsons, C. J.
We are of opinion that, for the cause assigned by the plaintiff in error, the judgment produced is erroneous.
The power of the referees to make a report, on which judgment may be rendered, and execution issue, is derived from the statute, commonly known as the referee act, the provisions of wmch must be pursued.
The third section of that act provides, that the determination of the referees, appointed pursuant to the previous provisions of the act, shall be made to the next term of the Common Pleas, to be holden for the county in which the justice lives, and that the Court, to whom the report…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Jones v. HackerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1809
- Lewis v. City of OmahaNebraska Supreme Court · 1950
- Bacon v. WardMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1813
- E. M. Biggs Tie & Store Co. v. Arlington Land Co.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1919
- Hampshire & Hampden Canal Co. v. AshleyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1834
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.