Stone v. Davis

14 Mass. 360
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedSeptember 15, 1817
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 14 Mass. 360 (Stone v. Davis) 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
Stone v. Davis, 14 Mass. 360 (Mass. 1817).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The petitioners exhibit a strong claim in justice tc a rehearing of their cause. But, they seem to be without legal remedy. Were we to grant them a review, we are not able to » conceive by what course of proceedings we could set aside the award of the referees. The proceedings are entirely regular in point of form. Were they brought before us by an order on this petition, they would not show any common law action. There would be no declaration, no plea, nor issue, nor judgment. We could not compel the respondents to file a declaration, upon which the petitioners could plead to issue. In truth, the parties, from the beginning, selected another forum ; they submitted the question between them to judges of their own choosing; they never intend ed to have the question decided at law. To entertain the cause here, would be utterly changing the whole ground upon which the parties have voluntarily placed themselves. Upon the facts disclosed, and which hitherto we have taken as not denied, the petitioners have a very hard case, and * are suffer-mg great injustice. But it is the effect of their own conduct, in putting their cause out of the course of the common law. Cases of equal hardship frequently occur, from causes not dissimilar to that in the present case. They are, however, out of our power to remedy. Had fraud been shown in any stage of the proceedings, the petitioners might have obtained relief; but here was nothing more than mistake.

The petitioners can take nothing by their petition.

Lincoln for the respondents.

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

Related

Nantasket Beach Railroad v. Ransom
17 N.E. 640 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1888)
Hubon v. Bousley
123 Mass. 368 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1877)
Sheafe v. Sheafe
29 N.H. 269 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1854)
Lucas v. Lucas
69 Mass. 136 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1854)
Weld v. Sabin
20 N.H. 533 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1847)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
14 Mass. 360, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stone-v-davis-mass-1817.