Leaycroft v. Fowler
New York Supreme Court
The parties by consent duly entered, referred this action to two referees; the referees found in an early stage of the proceeding that they probably would not agree, and proposed to the parties the addition of a third referee. To this the attorneys assented, and Mr. Hoffman was mutually agreed on; being suggested by Mr. Poisson, whom the defendant’s attorney had at first proposed, and then proposed by the defendant’s attorney himself.
Read the full summary
The parties by consent duly entered, referred this action to two referees; the referees found in an early stage of the proceeding that they probably would not agree, and proposed to the parties the addition of a third referee. To this the attorneys assented, and Mr. Hoffman was mutually agreed on; being suggested by Mr. Poisson, whom the defendant’s attorney had at first proposed, and then proposed by the defendant’s attorney himself. At the same time the referees entered in their minutes, “ at this stage of the proceedings Mr. Edward Hoffman was added as a third referee by consent.” After…
1Opinion of the Court
Mitchell, Justice.
It is enough under the Code (§ 270), if the appointment of referees be made on the written consent of the parties; this may be written by them or by their attorney, or the clerk of the court entering their consent in the minutes of the court, or the referees, who stand in the place of the court, entering it on their minutes. This last was done here and was sufficient. The parties also might by their acts waive any further writing than such as existed on the minutes of the referee, if more w’ere otherwise necessary, as they may waive a trial by twelve jurors by allowing…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Bucklin v. ChapinNew York Supreme Court · 1868
- Lennon v. SmithNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1892
- Chatfield v. HewlettNew York Surrogate's Court · 1882