Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

14 Mass. 360

Stone v. Davis

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided September 15, 1817

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1817-09-15

<p>No review lies upon a report of referees, appointed pursuant to Slat. 1786, c. 21, where the party found indebted has paid the sum awarded, and the report, with the acknowledgment of satisfaction, had been returned and recorded, accord ing to the statute.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1817-09-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently June 1888

4 state decisions

1018171820183018401850186018701880decided

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 →

Per Curiam.

¶1The 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.

¶2The petitioners can take nothing by their petition.

¶3Lincoln for the respondents.

/14/mass/360 · .json · Public domain