A report of referees without consent of parties be sent back to the same referees for the purpose of correcting informality.
Summary
EJECTMENT for a house and lot in the district of Southwark. John Snyder the lessor of the plaintiff obtained a judgment against Peter Hofman in this court at September term 1798 for 305 dolls, and 58 cts. and costs; and by a ft. fa. he took in execution the premises in question. The inquest found that the rents and profits would pay in seven years; and a l~be~ ran facias was then issued, and a return made that the house and lot were delivered at a certain valuation to Snyder; At the time of this execution Eleanor ETofinan the defendant, who was the wife of Peter but had separated from him, claimed and was possessed of the property under a conveyance from Peter to one Hannah Toy;, but this conveyance was alleged to have been without consideration and with intent to defraud Snyder; and he therefore brought the present ejectment.
The matters in variance in this cause were referred under a rule of court; and the referees made the following report: "We "the referees &c. do award. a balance of 364 dolls, and 37 cts. "~due from Peter Hoffman the defendant to John Snyder plain"tiff, with costs of suits It is in f~i1l proof before the referees "that the said Peter Hoffman and Eleanor his wife conveyed "a certain house and lot in the district of Southwark unto Han'. "nah Toy in fee, without any valuable consideration; which "said house and lot were reconveyed by the said H~innah Toy "to Eleanor wife of the said Peter Hoffman without any con"sideration as appears to us, thereby intending to prevent the "said house and lot being levied on for the payment of the just “ debts of the said Peter Hoffman, which in equity we believe “ s^ou^ mac^e liable to the judgment that may be obtained by “ the said John Snyder on this award.”
To this report several exceptions were filed. 1. That the jla(j ¿[eciqeci on a matter not submitted to them; viz. the sum due from Peter Hoffman to Snyder. 2. That the award was not positive, as the referees merely say they believe that the premises should in equity be made liable to the judgment that may be obtained. 3. That the referees report that the premises shculdbe liable to the judgment obtained on this award; whereas the question was whether they were liable to a judgment obtained in another suit. 4. That the sum awarded to be due was not the same that was recovered in the suit between Snyder mid Peter Hoffman.
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Per Curiam.
In the case of Eckarts administrators v. The executors of Vandercn there was a recommitment without consent after argument; and for these thirty years such recommitments have been frequent, when the report has been informal.
Judgment for the Plaintiff on the second report.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
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.
