Case ID: mass_16/html/0327-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Parker, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

* The Inhabitants of Buckland versus the Inhabitants of Conway.
    An authority to prosecute or defend a suit implies a power to refer it by rule of Court; that being a legal mode of prosecuting or defending.
    An award of referees to whom an action is submitted, that the defendant recover the costs of the action, is a sufficient determination of the matter sub mitted, and warrants a judgment that the plaintiff take nothing by his writ.
    This was a pauper cause pending in Franklin county, in which the question was, whether an estate in Comoay, which had been owned by the pauper, and of which he had taken the rents and profits three years successively, was of the clear yearly income ol three pounds; so that he had thereby acquired a settlement in Conway.
    
    The action was, at the May term, 1819, submitted by rule ot Court to certain referees, who made their report at the last May term in Franklin, that the defendants should recover against the plaintiffs the costs of the reference and the costs of Court.
    The plaintiffs opposed the acceptance of this report, alleging that the submission had been entered into without authority from them, and against their will. It appeared that the town had appointed agents to prosecute the action, without any particular instructions as to the conduct of it; and that the agents thus appointed had employed an attorney of this Court to commence and prosecute the action, by whose assent on behalf of the plaintiffs the rule of submission had been made. They also objected that the report was insufficient, in that it contained no opinion, judgment or determination upon the merits of the cause; that it was not conclusive upon the subject matter, nor final between the parties.
    
      Allen, for the plaintiffs.
    
      Mills, for the defendants-.
   Parker, C. J.

The agents of a town, appointed to prosecute a suit, have general authority to conduct the suit, unless restricted by the town as to the manner of executing their trust. A vote to choose agents, and a choice in conformity thereto, is equivalent to a full power of attorney. Agents thus appointed:have the power of substitution or delegation, so far as to appoint attorneys [ * 397 ] *and employ coqnsel; who, when they have become such ■ of record, have the same power, in relation to any thing to be done in -the progress of the suit, as the agents themselves. An authority to prosecute or defend a suit implies a power to refer it by rule of court., that being a legal mode of prosecuting or defending.

As to the validity of the report, in reference to the objection that it does not adjudicate upon the subject matter submitted to the referees, we think it sufficient, because, by necessary implication, it must be considered as a determination upon the question. They award that the defendant town shall recover the costs of the action. This they could not have done without having decided the point in controversy in their favor; at least, the legal presumption is, that they so determined. The judgment of the Court will be, that the plaintiffs take nothing by their writ, and that the defendants recover their costs: and this makes a final determination of the action, which is what was submitted to the referees. 
      
      
        [Filmer vs. Delber, 3 Taunt. 486. —Dawson, att. 33. —Griffith vs. Williams, 6 D. & E. 711. —Carthew, 412. —Salk. 70. —Skinner, 679. -2 Salk. 787. —12 Mod. 129. —Comb. 439. —Maughm, 106. —Watson, 49. —Bacon's Ab. Tit. Arb. (C —Caldwell, 13, 14 152, 153. —Holker & Al. vs. Parker, 7 Cranch, 436. —Ed.]