Smith v. Fellows
Smith v. Fellows.
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Smith, J.
It has been the general understanding of the profession, that a party, by moving for or assenting to a reference of his case under the act of 1874, did not waive his right to the jury trial provided by that act. And the defendant’s motion for a reference is to be interpreted, in view of the general understanding, not as a waiver of such jury trial, but as a waiver of objection to the application of the whole referee law to his case, — a waiver of objection to the course of proceeding prescribed by the act, one part of which is the use of the referee’s report as evidence in such jury trial.
The second question was decided in Deverson v. Eastern Railroad, ante, p. 129.
Case discharged.
Stanley, J., did not sit.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.