Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

11 Kan. 460

Arn v. Coleman

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided July 15, 1873

Supreme Court of Kansas · decided 1873-07-15

Error from Wyandotte District Court. Coleman brought three suits as plaintiff, two against Ferdinand Arn alone, and one against Ferdinand Arn and Fritz Arn. Each of these cases was referred by the court to three r'eferees. Other facts and proceedings are stated- in the opinion. Judgment was given in favor of Coleman in each case, at the June Term 1872, and the Arns bring the cases here on error. The three cases were heard and considered together. 1.

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““ ‘A referee is born of an order - without it he is not/ And when he has performed the duty imposed by that order he is functus officio, and his acts are no more than the acts of a private individual. Hp to the time his report is -made- and filed he can modify and change it, he can alter and amend it. But when once it has been filed and bepome a record of the court, his power over it is at an end, and his relation to the case has ceased.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Baca v. Unknown Heirs of Palaez

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1873-07-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently September 1927

6 state decisions

20187318801890190019101920decided

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 opinion of the court was delivered by

Brewer, J.:

¶2A single question disposes of all these cases. They were all separately referred to three referees to hear the proofs and allegations, and report thereon. The referees made their report in each' case, finding generally in favor of the plaintiff, now defendant in error. Upon motion of of the defendant (now plaintiff in error,) the district court set aside and vacated this report. At a subsequent term the plaintiff filed the motion to vacate and modify the order, setting aside and vacating the report of the referees, and for leave to' the referees to file an amended report. This motion was overruled. Thereafter, and without any further order or direction of the court, the referees made a further and amended report, also in favor of the plaintiff, stating their findings of facts and conclusions of law separately. Upon this report judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff, over the objection of the defendant. Is such a judgment valid? We think not. “A referee is born of an order; without it he is not.” And when he has performed the duty imposed by that order he is fimetus officio, and his acts are no more than the acts of a private individual. Up to the time his report is made and filed he can modify and change it, he can alter and amend it. But when once it has been filed, and become a record of the court, his power over it is at an end, and his relation to the case has ceased.' If *462his report is set aside and vacated the case stands in the court as before the order of reference was made, and may be tried by the court, or a jury, or referred to the same or new referees. How far the court may, after the report is filed, and before any order is made setting it aside, send it back for consideration and amendment, is not involved in this case, and we express no opinion thereon. Even in such cases the referee would have no power without the permission or direction of the court. In this case the report was set aside and vacated. The attempted trial was at an end. A jury might as well come back after a verdict had been set aside, and return an amended verdict, as a referee, after his report has been set aside, make a further and amended report. . It follows therefore that the judgment upon the second report was irregular and must be set aside. Edwards on Referees, 80, 141; Voorhis v. Voorhis, 50 Barb., 119; Leffler v. Field, 33 How. Pr., 385; Trufant v. Merrill, 37 How. Pr., 531; Nelson v. Ingersoll, 27 How. Pr., 1; Niles v. Price, 23 How. Pr., 473; Pratt v. Stiles, 17 How. Pr., 211; Shearman v. Justice, 22 How. Pr., 241.

¶3The judgment of the district court will be reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings.

All the Justices concurring.
/11/kan/460 · .json · Public domain