¶1It appears from the- records, that the reports were agreed on and subscribed on the 16th August 1791. The rules of reference, not being struck off, must be deemed to continue until discharged either by consent or rule of court. This *is a much stronger case than that of swearing a juror, and therefore the defendants were not competent to remove the suits by habeas corpus at the ad-*194joumed court in December. If even tbe auditors had proceeded to examine the witnesses, though they had not agreed on their reports, neither party could remove the actions while sub judice. If either the plaintiffs or defendants were dissatisfied with the conduct of the referees, their proper remedy was by application to the Court of Common Pleas, who it must be presumed, would in every reasonable and equitable case, grant them relief.
1 Yeates 193
Grubb v. M'Cullough
Decided September 15, 1792
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1792-09-15
Thksb were five different suits brought for legacies devised to the plaintiffs respectively, under the will of their father, Thomas Grubb, during the late war. Auditors were appointed and struck under the depreciation act, by the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster county, in May term 1791, to ascertain the demands of the several plaintiffs; and the different actions were continued under the same rules of reference at the August term following.
Cited by 1 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 1789
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1792-09-15
View the full empirical analysis of this case →