Gratz v. Phillips

<p>Exceptions to the report of auditors m account renden, are too late after a judgv ment msi upou the report has become absolute by the expiration of the t — !t hp- Whether ou^hte"not^o°be taken before the auditors, and prior to any report.</p> <p>A FTER a judgment to account in this case, the court appointed auditors, who on the 28th November 1810 , , . . .„ . hied their report awarding to the plaintiff the sum or 12,lo9 dollars and 94 cents. The report was read on the first day of * . . _ , , December term, and a judgment mm entered. Un the 13tn, 0f December, time was granted to the defendants until the ' ° . , 20th, .upon Mr. Dallas’s motion, to file exceptions to the report; but no exceptions were filed until the 7th of January 1811, which was after the end of December term.</p> <p>'^le fust week of the present March term, Dallas for the defendants moved for a rule upon the plaintiff to plead t0 exceptions filed. 1</p> <p>Meredith and Rawle opposed the rule upon the ground,</p> <p>1. That the exceptions were too late, as they were not filed until after the expiration of the term to which the report was returned, and after the judgment had become absolute.</p> <p>2. That they ought to have been taken before the auditors; and as that had not been done in this case, the court could not have received them, if filed at any time.</p> <p>Upon the second point, the counsel on both sides went very much into a consideration of the English entries and decisions; and the plaintiff’s counsel particularly urged, that the point had been already settled by this court in the case of Moore v. Hunter* at March term 1807; but it becomes unnecessary to state the argument, as the court declined giving any opinion upon that objection to the rule, being clearly with the plaintiff upon the other.</p>