Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

1 Dall. 145

Brown v. Scott

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided November 15, 1785

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1785-11-15

RULE to shew cause why the report of referrees should not be set aside.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1785-11-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently March 1870

8 state decisions

201785179018001810182018301840185018601870decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1the President delivered the opinion of the Court as follows:

Shippen, President.

¶2The justice and fairness of the transaction, on the part of the plaintiff, is so obvious; and the consent of the parties to consolidate the actions, is so naturally implied from the whole of the proceedings, that my brethren* think the report ought to be confirmed.

¶3For myself, I doubt the legality of it, because I do not see how it is possible to enter judgment upon the report so as to avoid error. The consolidation of actions is intended to save expence, and might have been ordered by the Court on motion; but this agreement of the parties does not appear to me to amount to a consolidation, there being five several rules of referrence in the five several actions; and though, indeed, the referrees have undertaken to consolidate them, I much doubt their authority so to do. Instead of finding a gross sum due on all the notes, they might have found what was due on each note, and have reported the several sums on the separate rules of referrence. However as my brethren think the report ought to stand, let it be confirmed, and the plaintiff may make up the record as he thinks safest.

¶4Report confirmed.

¶5Floeson and William Resp. Justices.

/1/dall/145 · .json · Public domain