Short v. Pratt

6 Mass. 496
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedSeptember 15, 1810
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 6 Mass. 496 (Short v. Pratt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Short v. Pratt, 6 Mass. 496 (Mass. 1810).

Opinion

Parsons, C. J.

The statute under which these proceedings [410]*410were had, requires the submission to be made to all the referees named; although, if the greater part agree, the report shall be a foundation for a judgment; and upon a recommitment of the report all the referees must hear the parties; and if they do not all agree, the greater part may proceed. And a judgment on a report made under the statute is not legal, unless it appears on the record that the report was made pursuant to the provisions of the statute which authorizes the judgment.

But it does not appear on this record, that all the referees heard the parties ; and this is error, for which the judgment ought to be reversed. — If all had heard the parties, two might have made a report against the assent of the third. But his opinion [ * 498 ] and arguments might have had an * influence on the judgments of the others, and have produced a different report, although he might finally have dissented.

.It is indispensable in the proceedings under this statute, that all the referees should hear the parties, on the matters submitted ; and this fact should appear on the record. It does not appear On this record ; and for this cause the judgment must be reversed.

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

Related

Estate of John W. Gilbert
2017 ME 175 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 2017)
Estate of Gilbert
2017 ME 175 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 2017)
Doherty v. Doherty
19 N.E. 352 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1889)
Denison v. Portland Co.
60 Me. 519 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1872)
Townsend v. Hazard and Others
9 R.I. 436 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1870)
Brann v. Inhabitants of Vassalboro'
50 Me. 64 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1862)
Sperry v. Ricker
86 Mass. 17 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1862)
Joslyn v. County Commissioners of Franklin
81 Mass. 567 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1860)
McCrary v. Harrison
36 Ala. 577 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1860)
Hoffman v. Hoffman
26 N.J.L. 175 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1857)
Shaw v. Norfolk County Railroad
71 Mass. 162 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1855)
Carpenter v. Wood
42 Mass. 409 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1840)
Howard v. Conro
2 Vt. 492 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1829)
Inhabitants of Cumberland v. Inhabitants of North-Yarmouth
4 Me. 459 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1827)
Ex parte Jennings
6 Cow. 518 (New York Supreme Court, 1826)
Moffitt v. Jaquins
19 Mass. 331 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1824)
Peterson v. Loring
1 Me. 64 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1820)
Bacon v. Ward
10 Mass. 141 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1813)
Jones v. Hacker
5 Mass. 264 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1809)
Couch v. Davis
1 Smith & H. 136 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1806)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
6 Mass. 496, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/short-v-pratt-mass-1810.