Bennett v. Atwood

57 N.H. 216, 1876 N.H. LEXIS 88
CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire
DecidedAugust 10, 1876
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 57 N.H. 216 (Bennett v. Atwood) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bennett v. Atwood, 57 N.H. 216, 1876 N.H. LEXIS 88 (N.H. 1876).

Opinions

FROM CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT. I think the ruling in this case was wrong. By entering into an agreement to refer their cause under a rule of court, the parties withdrew it from the operation of the laws which prescribe the order and mode of proceeding in suits at law. In place of a trial by jury or by the court, was substituted a trial before a tribunal which they selected and made for themselves; and their agreement as to the course of proceedings, and the disposition of the case thereupon, became the *Page 217 law by which their rights and obligations were fixed. They agreed that judgment on the report of the referee should be final and conclusive; and when such judgment had been entered, neither could draw back and insist upon rights which were incident to a mode of proceeding which they had expressly abandoned and waived. Certainly, after such judgment, it is too late for the defeated party to claim another trial, either by jury or another referee, by way of review. He is precluded from that by the agreement he has made, and the statute does not apply. I think the defendant's exception should be sustained.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Parsons v. Hilliard
61 N.H. 642 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1881)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
57 N.H. 216, 1876 N.H. LEXIS 88, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bennett-v-atwood-nh-1876.