Rand v. Rand

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Rand v. Rand

56 N.H. 421, 1876 N.H. LEXIS 163

DecidedMarch 22, 1876

StatusPublished

This text of 56 N.H. 421 (Rand v. Rand) 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

Rand v. Rand, 56 N.H. 421, 1876 N.H. LEXIS 163 (N.H. 1876).

Pincite

Opinions

FROM MERRIMACK CIRCUIT COURT. I understand from the case that the plaintiff claimed, as matter of legal right, that she should be permitted to go into a full trial, before the judge, of the facts found and reported by the referee; and that claim is one which I think cannot be sustained. Undoubtedly the court could not abdicate a judicial function by refusing to look at the report, or consider any question of law, fact, or practice that might be raised upon it; but that was not what was done. The cause had been sent to a referee in the exercise of an unquestionable authority conferred by the act of 1874. The facts had been tried, and a report returned: the effect to be given to the report, in reference to matters of fact found by it, was a thing to be determined by the court in the exercise of a sound discretion. Under the statute, I think it stands very much like the report of a master in equity proceedings. My conclusion is, that the exception should be overruled.

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

FROM MERRIMACK CIRCUIT COURT. I understand from the case that the plaintiff claimed, as matter of legal right, that she should be permitted to go into a full trial, before the judge, of the facts found and reported by the referee; and that claim is one which I think cannot be sustained. Undoubtedly the court could not abdicate a judicial function by refusing to look at the report, or consider any question of law, fact, or practice that might be raised upon it; but that was not what was done. The cause had been sent to a referee in the exercise of an unquestionable authority conferred by the act of 1874. The facts had been tried, and a report returned: the effect to be given to the report, in reference to matters of fact found by it, was a thing to be determined by the court in the exercise of a sound discretion. Under the statute, I think it stands very much like the report of a master in equity proceedings. My conclusion is, that the exception should be overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 N.H. 421, 1876 N.H. LEXIS 163, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rand-v-rand-nh-1876.