Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

32 Me. 23

Smith v. Smith

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided July 1, 1850

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

<p>On motion to reject an award of referees, the 'affidavit of the party is not evidence, that he was fraudulently induced to enter into the submission.</p> <p>It is not essential to the validity of an award, that it should contain a statement of the referees’ fees.</p>

Decided 1850-07-01

Shepley, C. J.,

¶1orally.—The defendant’s affidavit was inadmissible. The prejudication by one of the referees was not proved. It is to be considered that two only of the referees concurred in the award. But that circumstance alone does not invalidate it. The insertion of their fees in the award was mere matter in the discretion of the referees. They were not called upon to do it. No one appears to have been in- .¡red by the omission. It might perhaps be ground for re-commitment. But that is not asked.

¶2 Exceptions overruled.

/32/me/23 · .json · Public domain