May v. Haven

9 Mass. 325
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided October 15, 1812·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

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[294] crees to alter the report. They may return it without alteration, if they are fully satisfied of the correctness of it.

Whitman and Ellis for the defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed with costs.

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

May v. Haven, 9 Mass. 325 (Mass. 1812).

9 Mass. 325 (May v. Haven) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Blood v. Robinson
55 Mass. 389 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1848)
Adams v. Adams
8 N.H. 82 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1835)
Inhabitants of Cumberland v. Inhabitants of North-Yarmouth
4 Me. 459 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1827)
Peterson v. Loring
1 Me. 64 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1820)
Couch v. Davis
1 Smith & H. 136 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1806)