Case ID: mich-np-r_1/html/0139-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mitchell, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Abraham Wise vs. Samuel S. Gale.
    
      /kn Interlocutory decree referring it to a Circuit Court CommiHflioner, to take an account bo - twoon the parties, and directing the basis of the accounting, is final 20 far as it fixes such basis
    It is not erior for the Commissioner to overrule an offer of testimony tending t» change or modify that basis.
    •The Court will not recommit the Commisiiouor’s report except for manifest error, nor investigate the prools taken on the reference, with a view of ascortuinUg if it would arrive at the same, or a different conclusion from the Committsioner.
    Being free from error, the Commissioner’s report is to be treated as aspocial verdict or finding by the Court.
    Overruling the exceptions is equivalent to a confirmation of the report.
    Interlocutory decree controls the basis of the report and the final decree, and, upon review, is to bo trcatod, so far as a part of the final decree.
    jNotico for furthor directions is necessary to obtaining final decree.
    
      Macomb Circuit, in Chancery,
    
      March 1870.
    
      R. P. <& J. B. Eldrultjc, Complainant’s Solicitors.
    
      Hubbard & Crocker, Defendant’s Solicitors.
    Exceptions to Commissioner’s report.
    This case was originally heard beiore Judge Green, in 1807, upon pleadings and proofs, and a decree made by which it was referred to a Commissioner to take a mutual account between the parties who were co-partners, and directing the basis upon which the accounts should be taken, and especially how much; and the value of defendant’s services over one half (if any) of the whole time. And to report and direct the manner of payment of any balance found due either party.
    The Commissioner proceeded to hear the parties upon interrogatories and to take proofs, and reported the value of defendant’s services over one half his time at $250, and following the basis fixed by the interlocutory decree, reported an amount due the complainant and directed its payment in ten days after confirmation.
    At the hearing before the Commissioner, defendant offered proofs tending to show that the amount of capital stock and the amount inyoiced at dissolution, were different from the amounts fixed as the basis of the accounting by the preliminary decree which proof was rejected by the Commissioner.
    
      Both parties excepted to the report, and the case came on to*, be heard on the exceptions.
   By the Court,

Mitchell, J.

The interlocutory decree was: final, so far as it fixed the basis upon which the accounting wasf directed, and the Commissioner properly overruled all testimony tending to change or vary that basis.

The Court will not change or send back the report for recomputation, unless errors are clearly pointed out; nor go through* the proofs to see if the Court would arrive at the same or ar different conclusion from the Commissioner, it appearing that there was proof sufficient to sustain his report. Unless clear errors are shown, the Commissioner’s report must be treated as-a special verdict or finding by the Court.

All the exceptions are overruled, and the overruling of exceptions is equivalent to and a confirmation oí the report.

In order to obtaining a final decree it was necessary that m notice should be given for further directions.

The interlocutory decree is so far final as to control the basis oí the report and final decree, and for the purposes oí review must be held and treated as part oí the final decree.

Notice lor further directions required.