Miller & Underhill v. Vaughan

New York Supreme Court

Miller & Underhill v. Vaughan

1 Johns. 315

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedMay 15, 1806

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1 Johns. 315 (Miller & Underhill v. Vaughan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Miller & Underhill v. Vaughan, 1 Johns. 315 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1806).

Pincite

Opinion

Per curiam.

Where a cause is referred by consent, the court will not listen to an application to set aside the report. We interpose only where the cause has been referred by a rule of court, pursuant to the statute. The parties are left to the same remedy, as in the case of a mere submission to arbitrators. The court have no controul over referees, voluntarily chosen by the parties. It is also admitted that this was not a proper case for a reference under the act. It was decided in November term last, that the court would not interfere in such a case.

Motion denied.

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

Per curiam.

Where a cause is referred by consent, the court will not listen to an application to set aside the report. We interpose only where the cause has been referred by a rule of court, pursuant to the statute. The parties are left to the same remedy, as in the case of a mere submission to arbitrators. The court have no controul over referees, voluntarily chosen by the parties. It is also admitted that this was not a proper case for a reference under the act. It was decided in November term last, that the court would not interfere in such a case.

Motion denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Johns. 315, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-underhill-v-vaughan-nysupct-1806.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack