Case ID: abb-pr-ns_5/html/0129-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Grover, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SHAW against SMITH.
    
      Court of Appeals,
    
    
      January Term, 1867.
    Appeal.—Exceptions to Repoet.—Damages on Af-FIEMANCE.
    In an action of an equitable nature, to close the affairs of a copartnership, the court of appeals can only review questions of law raised in the court below upon rulings to which proper exceptions were taken.
    Exceptions which present questions of fact only, or relating to the admissibility of evidence, without stating the ground of objection, are not available.
    In such a case, however, the court affirmed the judgment without awarding damages on the appeal to the respondent, in consideration of the appellant’s case being a hard one.
    Appeal from a judgment.
    
      H. D. Lapaugh, for appellant.
    
      A. Gibbs, for respondent.
   Grover, J.

—In looking over the papers in this case, I am unable to discover any question so presented as to enable this court to notice it. This court can in this class, of cases only review questions of law raised in the court below to the rulings, upon which proper exceptions were-taken. The exceptions taken to the report of the referee-present questions of fact only. Upon the hearing before the referee, certain questions were objected to by the plaintiff’s counsel, which objections were overruled by the referee, to which rulings the plaintiff’s counsel excepted, but no grounds for any of the objections were stated. Such general objections, stating no ground therefor, are not available upon review. In- short, they amount to nothing, only to lumber up the case.

The judgment appealed from must be affirmed, and I should be in favor of giving damages to the respondent,, was I not impressed by a perusal of the case that the appellant had had rather a hard measure applied to his case, probably resulting from a failure in calling attention to the point. The respondent appears to have got all the bad debts for nothing, and I apprehend a larger judgment than a close examination of the accounts would entitle him to. But there being no exceptions on these points, this court can afford no redress, should it find the judgment incorrect in these particulars.

All the judges concurred.

Judgment affirmed.