Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

31 Me. 518

Brown v. Clay

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided July 1, 1850

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · decided 1850-07-01

Covenant broken. The action was referred to the Hon. Ashur Ware, by a rule of court, containing no restriction upon his powers, as referee. His award was made in favor of the plaintiff, for $ 1548,60 damage, with costs of court, and of reference. At the request of the defendant’s counsel, the referee put into writing an exposition of the views and considerations upon which the award was founded.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1850-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently April 1893

2 state decisions

1018501860187018801890decided

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 →

¶1Upon the first point, Wells, J. delivered the opinion of the court, orally.

¶2The question presented, relates to the poAver of the court, over awards of referees, when said to be decided upon erroneous views of the law.

¶3The referee, at the request of the defendant’s counsel, has furnished an exposition of the legal views, upon which he acted. But it is not made a part of the award, nor adverted to in it. There are no conditions, no alternatives in the award.

¶4It is contended that the referee erred in relation to a position in laAV, in construing the contract betAveen the parties; and that that error has grievously injured the defendant.

¶5That question of law, with the views of counsel upon it, has been fully presented to us. It seems to be a question of difficulty ; one concerning Avhich legal men might differ. Such questions must be submitted to some tribunal. The *520parties have established a tribunal of then- own to settle it. In giving power to the referee, there was no restriction, no reservation. His authority over the subject was supreme. Upon his decision, no tribunal known to the law, can sit in judgment. It was his to decide the law, as well as the fact.

¶6Report accepted.

¶7Whitmore, for plaintiff.

/31/me/518 · .json · Public domain