May v. Haven
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
The judgment, which the writ of error in this case' was brought to reverse, was rendered by the Court of Common Pleas for this county, September term, 1810, in an action of trespass, wherein the defendant in error was plaintiff, and the plaintiffs in error were defendants.
Read the full summary
The judgment, which the writ of error in this case' was brought to reverse, was rendered by the Court of Common Pleas for this county, September term, 1810, in an action of trespass, wherein the defendant in error was plaintiff, and the plaintiffs in error were defendants. From the record sent up, it appeared that, at March term, 1810, the action was, by a rule of the court, submitted to three referees, and it was agreed that final judgment should be rendered on the report of the three referees, or of any two of them. The three referees made a report in favor of the plaintiff", which was…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
The point principally relied on by the plaintiffs in error is, that the first report had lost its effect, and had become a nullity, by the recommitment of it to the referees. But we think otherwise. Reports are frequently recommitted by the court, when, upon their being read, some defect, in point of form, is discovered ; and this without the suggestion of either party. Or, if a report is recommitted on the motion of one of the parties, who thinks himself aggrieved by it, still no obligation is thereby imposed on the ref*294crees to alter the report. They may return it without…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Peterson v. LoringSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1820
- Adams v. AdamsSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1835
- Blood v. RobinsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1848
- Couch v. DavisSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1806
- Inhabitants of Cumberland v. Inhabitants of North-YarmouthSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1827