Mussina v. Hertzog
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
EXCEPTIONS by the plaintiff to a report of referees. There were cross actions on the case between these parties, who had been partners, and brought suit respectively in this form, for matters arising out of unsettled partnership transactions.
Read the full summary
EXCEPTIONS by the plaintiff to a report of referees. There were cross actions on the case between these parties, who had been partners, and brought suit respectively in this form, for matters arising out of unsettled partnership transactions. The present action was by amicable agreement to July term 1812, whereby the parties submitted ail matters in anee between them in this action, to Peter Wiltberger, Thomas Mifflin, and William Bethell, who were “ to hear the par“ties and their allegations, and determine the controversies “ between them, and their award or the award of any two “ them to be…
1Opinion of the Court
Tilghman C. J.
It is unnecessary to decide whether a party shall be permitted to except, after a plain and clear agreement not to file exceptions. That is not the present case. The first agreement is in the usual form, and neither party is barred by the terms jinal and conclusive. They are common to every rule of reference, and leave the report subject to the Court’s opinion, upon exceptions duly filed. The second agreement, was no doubt made to obviate objections to the form of action, and the nature of the demand. These are the legal objections referred to; objections that might be taken…
2Cited by5 opinions
- McCahan v. ReameySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1859
- Wilson v. YoungSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1848
- Rogers v. PlayfordSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1849
- Antrim's CaseDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1863
- White Star Mining Co. v. HultbergIllinois Supreme Court · 1906