Case ID: vt_19/html/0431-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the Court.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ira Davis v. Mary Partridge, Administratrix.
    Where exceptions are taken by one party to the decision of the county court in accepting a report ofauditors, judgment wifi be affirmed, unless it appear that it should be reversed upon those exceptions; but if reversed, the whofe ease will be before the court, to render such judgment therein as the county court should have rendered; the other party may therefore, upon the hearing, argue, if he choose, such- questions as were decided against hint by the county court, although he took no exceptions at the time.
    
      In this case a report had been made by auditors, and exceptions had been taken by one party to decisions made by the county court in accepting the report, and now, upon the argument of the ease, a question was raised, whether the whole case was open, so that the other party might take advantage of questions decided against him by the county court, and upon which no exceptions were reserved.
   By the Court.

Such questions cannot be considered, in the first instance, as open. But in the event of our reversing the decision of the county court, as this is a report of auditors, the whole case will be before the court, to render such a judgment as the county court should have rendered; so that the party not excepting is entitled to argue provisionally, if he chooses, the points decided against him in the court below. But if the defendant fail to satisfy us, upon her exceptions, that she is entitled to have judgment reversed, it will of course be affirmed. The plaintiff, of course, is not in the first instance entitled to have the judgment reversed upon °the ground of decisions, to which he took no exceptions.