TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Maberry v. Morse

William Maberry versus Benjamin Morse

Maberry v. Morse, 43 Me. 176 (1857)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 1, 1857
Judges
Appleton
Citations
43 Me. 176
Headnotes
This court is authorized to establish such rules and regulations as maybe necessary respecting the modes of trial and the conduct of business before it. The rules established in pursuance of this authority have all the binding and obligatory force of a statute. By the 21st rule of this court, all objections to a report of referees are required to be in writing, and the court, by its own rules, are precluded from considering them unless so made.
Summary
The plaintiff at Nisi Prius, Goodenow, J., presiding, moved the acceptance of a report of referees. The defendant moved a recommitment, because injustice and partiality are manifest upon the face of the award; for excess of authority, and for newly discovered evidence. But these objections were not made in writing, and filed with the clerk. The presiding judge ordered the acceptance of the report, to which the defendant excepted.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Appleton

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Appleton, J.

By R. S., chap. 96, p. 9, this court is authorized “ from time to time to establish all such rules and regulations as may be necessaiy respecting the modes of trial and the conduct of business, not being repugnant to law, whether in relation to suits at law or in equity.” The rules established in pursuance of this authority, have all the binding and obligatory force of a statute. They are binding on any justice at Nisi Prius, or on this court sitting in banc. Neither this court, nor any member, can dispense with or disregard them. Thompson v. Hatch, 3 Pick., 512 .

By the 21st rule of this court, 37 Maine, 21, all objections are required to be in writing, and unless in writing, the court ivill not consider them. The exceptions signed by the counsel, excepting to the rulings of the justice presiding at Nisi Prius, show that no written objections to the acceptance of *177 this report wore ever filed. The court therefore, by its own rules, are precluded from considering them.

Exceptions overruled.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1901: 11936: 11949: 21950: 119012026peak 1949 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Collins v. Superior Court62 P.2d 131 (Ariz. 1936)
  2. In re Knapp's Estate74 A.2d 217 (Me. 1950)
  3. Moores v. Inhabitants of Springfield64 A.2d 569 (Me. 1949)
  4. Bodwell-Leighton Co. v. Coffin & Wimple, Inc.69 A.2d 567 (Me. 1949)
  5. District of Columbia v. Roth18 App. D.C. 547 (D.C. Cir. 1901)

Most recent

  1. In re Knapp's Estate74 A.2d 217 (Me. 1950)
  2. Bodwell-Leighton Co. v. Coffin & Wimple, Inc.69 A.2d 567 (Me. 1949)
  3. Moores v. Inhabitants of Springfield64 A.2d 569 (Me. 1949)
  4. Collins v. Superior Court62 P.2d 131 (Ariz. 1936)
  5. District of Columbia v. Roth18 App. D.C. 547 (D.C. Cir. 1901)

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.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list