¶1FROM MERRIMACK CIRCUIT COURT. I understand from the case that the plaintiff claimed, as matter of legal right, that she should be permitted to go into a full trial, before the judge, of the facts found and reported by the referee; and that claim is one which I think cannot be sustained. Undoubtedly the court could not abdicate a judicial function by refusing to look at the report, or consider any question of law, fact, or practice that might be raised upon it; but that was not what was done. The cause had been sent to a referee in the exercise of an unquestionable authority conferred by the act of 1874. The facts had been tried, and a report returned: the effect to be given to the report, in reference to matters of fact found by it, was a thing to be determined by the court in the exercise of a sound discretion. Under the statute, I think it stands very much like the report of a master in equity proceedings. My conclusion is, that the exception should be overruled.
56 N.H. 421
Rand v. Rand
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Decided March 22, 1876
Supreme Court of New Hampshire · decided 1876-03-22
From Merrimack Circuit Court. Libel for Divorce. At October term, 1874, this action was by order of court sent to a referee, who, after notice to the parties and a full hearing, made a general report in favor of the defendant. At the request of the parties he reported the facts found proved by him. Upon the presentation of his report, the plaintiff elected to try the case by the court, claiming that she had the legal right to be so heard, but assigning no other reason.
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently August 1877
1 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1876-03-22
View the full empirical analysis of this case →