Case ID: me_35/html/0135-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Rice, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Atkinson & al. versus Crooker & al.
    
    Upon motion to accept an award of referees, the onus is upon the opposing party to impeach it.
    An award, which had been recommitted for correction in form only, may be returned in a new draft or in the original draft with the corrections.
    The presumption in such a case is, that the referees conformed to the direction of the Court.
    In the absence of evidence to impeach the award so returned, it will be accepted.
    
      On Report from Nisi Prius, Hathaway, J., presiding.
    The action had been submitted, by rule of Court, to referees. Their report awarded to the plaintiffs #5290,77, damage.
    Below the signatures of the referees, were minutes written as follows: —
    Referees’ fee, taxed at #100, to be paid, one half by plfs., and one half by dfrs.
    ~ Damage, #5290,77
    Cost of reference, 41,87
    #100, half to be paid by the defendants. 50,00
    #5382,64
    The award was offered for acceptance, and was objected to, and recommitted for correction in matter of form only.
    It now came up in a new draft, the original not having been returned. The defendants objected; 1st. that the original ought to have been returned, that the Court might see whether the referees had conformed to the directions. 2d. That the award does not purport to be an amended one. 3d. That the referees’ fees should be stated in the body of the award. R. S. c. 138, § 11; Smith v. Smith, 32 Maine, 23.
    
      The plaintiffs, against objections seasonably taken, introduced parole proof that the award was altered only in matter of form. The case was submitted to the Court.
    
      Paine and Foster, for the plaintiffs.
    
      J. S. Abbott, for the defendants.
   Rice, J.

— The report of referees is in proper form. There is no suggestion of improper conduct, error or mistake on the part of the referees, nor that the fees by them charged were excessive or unreasonable. The report as originally presented was defective in form and was recommitted for correction in that respect, and returned to Court in a new draft. Complaint is made that the referees did not return their original report so that it might appear by comparison whether the referees had complied with the instructions of the Court. The evidence introduced shows that the corrections made by the referees were in matters of form only. This testimony is objected to as incompetent. If stricken out, the result must be the same, as the presumption, in the absence of the proof, would be that the referees had done their duty. The burden is on the objecting party to impeach a report of the referees. If the objection had been taken that the referees had taxed exorbitant or unreasonable fees, the Court would have recommitted the report, with instructions that their fees be set out specifically, to the end that it might determine whether they were reasonable. Report accepted.

Shepley, C. J., and Wells, Howard and Hathaway, J. J,, concurred.