Case ID: serg-rawl_6/html/0145-01.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

Russell against Gray.
    
      Tuesday, September 5.
    A report of retejes, under the act of 1705, is not fot mail" by th,e PK1's,onsto whom the cage was subírjndgment has en_ tererl thereon, ¡t will be re-^though no exceptions wore filed within the time limited by the rules of the inferior Court, for filing- exceptions to. reports of referees,
    In ERROR.
    WRIT of error to Allegehny county.
    The cause was referred under the act of 1705, by consent of parties, to three persons. One of the referees did not act: the other two named one in his place, and these three 7 ^ 7 # made a report in favour of the plaintiff. No exceptions being taken within four days, the Court refused to interfere, and ordered judgment to be entered for the plaintiff on the J ° ‘ report, which MiDonald and Campbell, for the plaintiff in error, insisted was erroneous, as the two referees had’ no right to fill the place of the one who did not act. v? 1
    
      
      Forward and Wilkins, for the defendant in error,
    contended, that the judgment was valid, because the rules of the Court of Common Pleas made it necessary to file exceptions f°ur days from the time the report of referees was brought into Court.
   By the Court.

This award is not good, because not made by the three persons to whom the parties submitted it. Judgments on awards, are authorised by the act of assembly of 1705, but then the award must be made by the referees, to whom the cause was submitted. As to the rule of the Court of Common Pleas, it cannot make a judgment good, which is not entered according to law. If no exceptions be filed within four days, the Court of Common Pleas will make no enquiry into the conduct of the referees, or into any mistakes supposed to have been made by them. But the party against whom judgment is entered, has a right to his writ of error, and if error appears on the record, we are bound to reverse the judgment. In this case, error does appear;—there is no legal foundation for the judgment. We are therefore of opinion, that it should be reversed.

Judgment reversed.