Source: http://openjurist.org/253/us/300
Timestamp: 2016-05-02 23:28:10
Document Index: 776174815

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 8584', '§ 983', '§ 1624', '§ 3256', '§ 5752', '§ 18', 'art, 56', '§ 31', '§ 50', '§ 60', '§ 25', '§ 1', '§ 70', '§ 1', '§ 4', '§ 7', '§ 968', '§ 1609']

253 U.S. 300 - In Re Peterson Homethe United States Reports253 U.S.
Fourth. The command of the Seventh Amendment that 'the right of trial by jury shall be preserved' does not require that old forms of practice and procedure be retained. Walker v. New Mexico & Southern Pacific Railroad, 165 U. S. 593, 596, 17 Sup. Ct. 421, 41 L. Ed. 837. Compare Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U. S. 78, 101, 29 Sup. Ct. 14, 53 L. Ed. 97. It does not prohibit the introduction of new methods for determining what facts are actually in issue, nor does it prohibit the introduction of new rules of evidence. Changes in these may be made. New devices may be used to adapt the ancient institution to present needs and to make of it an efficient instrument in the administration of justice.5 Indeed, such changes are essential to the preservation of the right. The limitation imposed by the amendment is merely that enjoyment of the right of trial by jury be not obstructed, and that the ultimate determination of issues of fact by the jury be not interfered with.
In so far as the task of the auditor is to define and simplify the issues, his function is, in essence, the same as that of pleading. The object of each is to concentrate the controversy upon the questions which should control the result. United States v. Gilmore, 7 Wall. 491, 494, 19 L. Ed. 282; Tucker v. United States, 151 U. S. 164, 168, 14 Sup. Ct. 299, 38 L. Ed. 112. No one is entitled in a civil case to trial by jury, unless and except so far as there are issues of fact to be determined. It does not infringe the constitutional right to a trial by jury to require, with a view to formulating the issues, an oath by each party to the facts relied upon. Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. United States, 187 U. S. 315, 23 Sup. Ct. 120, 47 L. Ed. 194. Nor does the requirement of a preliminary hearing infringe the constitutional right, either because it involves delay in reaching the jury trial, or because it affords opportunity for exploring in advance the evidence which the adversary purposes to introduce before the jury. Capital Traction Co. v. Hof, 174 U. S. 1, 19 Sup. Ct. 580, 43 L. Ed. 873. In view of these decisions, it cannot be deemed an undue obstruction of the right to a jury trial to require a preliminary hearing before an auditor.
Nor can the order be held unconstitutional, as unduly interfering with the jury's determination of issues of fact, because it directs the auditor to form and express an opinion upon facts and items in dispute. The report will, unless rejected by the court, be admitted at the jury trial as evidence of facts and findings embodied therein; but it will be treated, at most, as prima facie evidence thereof. The parties will remain as free to call, examine, and cross-examine witnesses as if the report had not been made. No incident of the jury trial is modified or taken away either by the preliminary, tentative hearing before the auditor or by the use to which his report may be put. An order of a court, like a statute, is not unconstitutional because it endows an official act or finding with a presumption of regularity or of verity. Marx v. Hanthorn, 148 U. S. 172, 182, 13 Sup. Ct. 508, 37 L. Ed. 410; Turpin v. Lemon, 187 U. S. 51, 59, 23 Sup. Ct. 20, 47 L. Ed. 70; Reitler v. Harris, 223 U. S. 437, 32 Sup. Ct. 248, 56 L. Ed. 497. In Meeker & Co. v. Lehigh Valley R. R., 236 U. S. 412, 430, 35 Sup. Ct. 328, 59 L. Ed. 644, Ann. Cas. 1916B, 691, it was held that the provision in section 16 of the Interstate Commerce Act (Comp. St. § 8584), making the findings and order of the Commission prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated in suits brought to enforce reparation awards, does not infringe upon the right of trial by jury. See also Mills v. Lehigh Valley Railroad, 238 U. S. 473, 35 Sup. Ct. 888, 59 L. Ed. 1414; Chicago, etc., R. R. v. Jones, 149 Ill. 361, 382, 37 N. E. 247, 24 L. R. A. 141, 41 Am. St. Rep. 278. In the Meeker Case this court relied especially upon Holmes v. Hunt, 122 Mass. 505, 23 Am. Rep. 381, and called attention to the fact that there the statute making the report of an auditor prima facie evidence at the trial before a jury was held to be a legitimate exercise of legislative power over rules of evidence and in no wise inconsistent with the constitutional right of trial by jury.6 The reasons for holding an auditor's report admissible as evidence are, in one respect, stronger than for giving such effect to the report of an independent tribunal like the Interstate Commerce Commission. The auditor is an officer of the court which appoints him. The proceedings before him are subject to its supervision, and the report may be used only if, and so far as, acceptable to the court.
Fifth. There being no constitutional obstacle to the appointment of an auditor in aid of jury trials, it remains to consider whether Congress has conferred upon District Courts power to make the order. There is here, unlike Ex parte Fisk, 113 U. S. 713, 5 Sup. Ct. 724, 28 L. Ed. 1117, no legislation of Congress which directly or by implication forbids the court to provide for such preliminary hearing and report. But, on the other hand, there is no statute which expressly authorizes it. The question presented is, therefore, whether the court possesses the inherent power to supply itself with this instrument for the administration of justice when deemed by it essential.
Courts have (at least in the absence of legislation to the contrary) inherent power to provide themselves with appropriate instruments required for the performance of their duties. Compare Stockbridge Iron Co. v. Cone Iron Works, 102 Mass. 80, 87-90. This power includes authority to appoint persons unconnected with the court to aid judges in the performance of specific judicial duties, as they may arise in the progress of a cause. From the commencement of our government it has been exercised by the federal courts, when sitting in equity, by appointing, either with or without the consent of the parties, special masters, auditors, examiners, and commissioners. To take and report testimony; to audit and state accounts; to make computations; to determine, where the facts are complicated and the evidence voluminous, what questions are actually in issue; to hear conflicting evidence and make finding thereon are among the purposes for which such aids to the judges have been appointed. Kimberly v. Arms, 129 U. S. 512, 523, 9 Sup. Ct. 355, 32 L. Ed. 764. Whether such aid shall be sought is ordinarily within the discretion of the trial judge; but this court has indicated that where accounts are complex and intricate, or the documents and other evidence voluminous, or where extensive computations are to be made, it is the better practice to refer the matter to a special master or commissioner than for the judge to undertake to perform the task himself. Heirs of P. E. Dubourg de St. Colombe v. United States, 7 Pet. 625, 8 L. Ed. 807; Chicago, Milwaukee & St. P. Ry. v. Tompkins, 176 U. S. 167, 180, 20 Sup. Ct. 336, 44 L. Ed. 417. Of the appointment made in Field v. Holland,6 Cranch, 8, 21 (3 L. Ed. 136), Mr. Chief Justice Marshall said:
What the District Judge was seeking when he appointed the auditor in the case at bar was just such aid. He required it himself, because without the aid to be rendered through the preliminary hearing and report, the trial judge would be unable to perform his duty of defining to the jury the issues submitted for their determination and of directing their attention to the matters actually in issue. United States v. Reading Railroad, 123 U. S. 113, 114, 8 Sup. Ct. 77, 31 L. Ed. 138. The hearing and report were also essential as shown above to enable the jury to perform their specific duty. Owing to the difference in the character of the proceedings and of the questions ordinarily involved, the occasion for seeking such aid as is afforded to a judge by special masters, auditors, or examiners arises less frequently at law than in equity. A compulsory reference with power to determine issues is impossible in the federal courts because of the Seventh Amendment, United States v. Rathbone, 2 Paine, 578, Fed. Cas. No. 16,121; but no reason exists why a compulsory reference to an auditor to simplify and clarify the issues and to make tentative findings may not be made at law, when occasion arises, as freely as compulsory references to special masters are made in equity. Reference of complicated questions of fact to a person specially appointed to hear the evidence and make findings thereon has long been recognized as an appropriate proceeding in an action at law. Heckers v. Fowler, 2 Wall. 123, 17 L. Ed. 759. The inherent power of a federal court to invoke such aid is the same whether the court sits in equity or at law. We conclude, therefore, that the order, in so far as it appointed the auditor and prescribed his duties, was within the power of the court.
Sixth. The clause in the order which provides that 'the expense of the auditor, including the expense of a stenographer, to be paid by either or both parties to this action, in accordance with the determination of the trial judge' requires special consideration. As Congress7 has made no provision for paying from public funds either the fees of auditors or the expense of the stenographer, the power to make the appointment without consent of the parties is practically dependent upon the power to tax the expense as costs. May the compensation of auditor and stenographer be taxed as costs; and, if so, may the expense be imposed in the discretion of the trial court upon either party?
Federal trial courts have, sometimes by general rule, sometimes by decision upon the facts of a particular case, included in the taxable costs expenditures incident to the litigation which were ordered by the court because deemed essential to a proper consideration of the case by the court or the jury. Equity rule 68 (33 Sup. Ct. xxxviii) provides for taxing the fees of masters, and rule 50 (33 Sup. Ct. xxxii) for the expense of a stenographer. Both rules embody substantially the practice which had theretofore prevailed generally in equity proceedings, and which in the Southern District of New York had been followed not only in equity, American Diamond Drill Co. v. Sullivan Machine Co. (C. C.) 32 Fed. 552; Id., 131 U. S. 428, 9 Sup. Ct. 794, 33 L. Ed. 217; Brickill v. Mayor, etc., of City of New York (C. C.) 55 Fed. 565; Hohorst v. Hamburg-American Packet Co. (C. C.) 76 Fed. 472; but also in admiralty,T he E. Luckenbach (D. C.) 19 Fed. 847; Rogers v. Brown (D. C.) 136 Fed. 813. The expense of printing the records and briefs in the trial court has been made by rule of court in several of the circuits taxable as costs against the defeated party, Hake v. Brown (C. C.) 44 Fed. 734. Compare Kelly v. Springfield Ry. Co. (C. C.) 83 Fed. 183; Tesla Electric Co. v. Scott (C. C.) 101 Fed. 524. As early as 1843 Mr. Justice Story, sitting at circuit in Whipple v. Cumberland Cotton Manufacturing Co., 3 Story, 84, Fed. Cas. No. 17,515, approved, in an action at law for damages, although not specially authorized by any rule, the order of a survey, as 'necessary for the true understanding of the cause on both sides,' and ordered the expense paid by them. In cases in which courts have refused to tax as costs copies of stenographer's minutes and other expenditures incident to the litigation, attention has been called to the fact that they were made for the benefit of the party, as distinguished from expenditures incurred under order of the court, to make possible or to facilitate its consideration of the case. Stallo v. Wagner, 245 Fed. 636, 158 C. C. A. 64; New Hampshire Land Co. v. Tilton (C. C.) 29 Fed. 764. But see Bridges v. Sheldon (C. C.) 7 Fed. 17, 42.
The allowance of costs in the federal courts rests, not upon express statutory enactment by Congress, but upon usage long continued and confirmed by implication from provisions in many statutes. Mr. Justice Woodbury in Hathaway v. Roach, 2 Woodb. & M. 63, Fed. Cas. No. 6,213; Mr. Justice Nelson in Costs in Civil Cases, 1 Blatchf. 652, Fed. Cas. No. 18,284; The Baltimore, 8 Wall. 377, 19 L. Ed. 463. In Hathaway v. Roach, 2 Woodb. & M. 67, Fed. Cas. No. 6,213, it is said to have been the usage of the federal courts——
And in The Baltimore, 8 Wall. 390, 391 (19 L. Ed. 463) this court stated that——
'The costs taxed in the Circuit and District Courts were the same as were allowed at that time in the courts of the state, including such matters as travel and attendance of the parties, fees for copies of the case, and abstracts for the hearing, compensation for the services of referees, auditors, masters, and assessors, and many other matters, not embraced in the fee bills, since passed by Congress.'8
Neither the Act of February 26, 1853, c. 80, 10 Stat. 161, Rev. Stats. § 983 (Comp. St. § 1624), nor any later act of Congress or rule of court, deals expressly or by implication with the subject of taxing as costs the expense of an auditor. The practice, if any, governing in this respect the courts of New York would, therefore, be followed in the federal courts. See Huntress v. Town of Epsom (C. C.) 15 Fed. 732. But, so far as appears, the preliminary hearing before an auditor in aid of jury trials is not a part of the judicial machinery of that state. The nearest analogy to it is the reference had in actions at law on long accounts as a substitute for a jury trial. The expense of the compulsory reference in such actions is so taxable. Code Civ. Proc. § 3256. As there is no statute, federal or state, and no rule of court excluding auditors' fees and the expense of his stenographer from the items taxable as costs, no reason appears why they may not be included, like other expenditures ordered by the court with a view to securing an intelligent consideration of a case.
While in equity proceedings the allowance and imposition of costs is, unless controlled by statute or rule of court, a matter of discretion, it has been uniformly held that in actions at law the prevailing party is entitled to costs as of right (compare United States v. Schurtz, 102 U. S. 378, 407, 26 L. Ed. 167, 219), except in those few cases where by express statutory provision or by established principles costs are denied.9 It has also been generally held that this right to costs of the prevailing party in actions at law extends to the entire costs in the trial court, and that the court is without power to make an apportionment based upon the fact that the prevailing party has failed in part of his claims, or that for other reasons only a part or none of the costs should in fairness be allowed.10 This rule of practice established by long usage is confirmed by the language of section 983 of the Revised Statutes. It would, therefore, be held to prevail over a rule, if any, to the contrary established in the courts of the state. But the practice in the courts of New York appears to be in this respect in entire harmony with that of the federal courts.11 In Whipple v. Cumberland Cotton Manufacturing Co., supra, the expense of the survey ordered by the court was imposed by it equally on the two parties; and the same disposition was made in Primrose v. Fenno, supra, where the auditor had been appointed at the instance of the court without objection by either party. But in Houlihan v. Corporation of St. Anthony (C. C.) 173 Fed. 496, and 184 Fed. 252, 106 C. C. A. 394, where the auditor was appointed by consent of the parties, the same court taxed both the auditor's and the stenographer's fees against the losing party, holding that it had discretion, if it was not obliged to do so; and a petition for writ of certiorari was denied by this court. 220 U. S. 613, 31 Sup. Ct. 717, 55 L. Ed. 609.
Although the order was erroneous in declaring that the expense of the auditor shall, instead of abiding the result of the action, be paid by one or both of the parties in accordance with the determination of the trial judge, the error does not require that either of the extraordinary remedies applied for here be granted. If the petitioner deems himself prejudiced by the error he may get redress through application to the District Court for a modification of the order, or after final judgment on writ of error, from the Circuit Court of Appeals. In re Morrison, 147 U. S. 14, 26, 13 Sup. Ct. 246, 37 L. Ed. 60. The petition for writs of mandamus and/or prohibition is
See Prof. Langdell, 2 Harvard Law Review, 241, 251-255; Holmes v. Hunt, 122 Mass. 505, 512, 23 Am. Rep. 381.
See United States v. Rose, 2 Cranch, C. C. 567, Fed. Cas. No. 16,193; Barry v. Barry, 3 Cranch, C. C. 120, Fed. Cas. No. 1,060; Bank of United States v. Johnson, 3 Cranch, C. C. 228, Fed. Cas. No. 919. The report was not admitted before the jury as prima facie evidence of the truth of the statements or conclusions of the auditor. McCullough v. Groff, 2 Mackey (D. C.) 361, 366.
Sulzer v. Watson (C. C.) 39 Fed. 414; Connecticut General Statutes, § 5752, (Ed. of 1918); Act of Vermont, October 21, 1782, Slade's Vermont State Papers, 456; Hall v. Armstrong, 65 Vt. 421, 26 Atl. 592, 20 L. R. A. 366; Missouri, Wagner's Stat. 1041, § 18; Edwardson v. Garnhart, 56 Mo. 81.
Steck v. C. F. & I. Co., 142 N. Y. 236, 37 N. E. 1, 25 L. R. A. 67. This fact has no bearing on the constitutional question involved here. The right to a jury trial guaranteed in the federal courts is that known to the law of England, not the jury trial as modified by local usage or statute. United States v. Wonson, 1 Gall. 5, 20, Fed. Cas. No. 16,750; Capital Traction Co. v. Hof, 174 U. S. 1, 8, 19 Sup. Ct. 580, 43 L. Ed. 873. See also United States v. Rathbone, 2 Paine, 578, Fed. Cas. No. 16,121; Howe Machine Co. v. Edwards, 15 Blatchf. 402, Fed. Cas. No. 6,74 ; Sulzer v. Watson (C. C.) 39 Fed. 414; United States v. Wells (D. C.) 203 Fed. 146, 149.
See 'Trial by Jury and the Reform of Civil Procedure,' by Prof. A. W. Scott, 31 Harvard Law Review, 669.
Acts making findings in the tentative hearing before an auditor prima facie evidence were held not to infringe the right of trial by jury in Maine, Howard v. Kimball, 65 Me. 308, 327; and in New Hampshire, Doyle v. Doyle, 56 N. H. 567; Perkins v. Scott, 57 N. H. 55. A different conclusion was reached in Francis v. Baker, 11 R. I. 103, 23 Am. Rep. 424, and Plimpton v. Town of Somerset, 33 Vt. 283.
In Massachusetts the expense of the auditor was prior to 1878 taxed in all cases as costs to be paid by the defeated party. See Acts of 1818, c. 142; Rev. Stat. (1836) c. 96, § 31; Gen. Stat. (1860) c. 121, § 50; Act of March 16, 1867, c. 67; Act of June 6, 1873, c. 342. By Act of April 23, 1878, c. 173, the expense of the auditor in cases tried in the superior or in the Supreme Judicial Court was made payable by the county. See also Rev. Laws (1902) c. 165, § 60; Act of June 5, 1911, c. 237; Acts of 1914, c. 576.
In Maine the fees of the auditor were prior to 1897 taxed as costs in favor of the prevailing party. Laws (1821) c. 59, § 25; Acts of 1826, c. 347, § 1; Rev. Stat. (1883) c. 82, § 70. Since the Act of March 12, 1897, c. 224, the fees and necessary expenses of the auditors are paid by the county.
In New Hampshire the fees of the auditor are also taxable as costs in favor of the prevailing party; but the court may now in its discretion, order them paid by the county. Act of June 23, 1823, c. 19, § 1; Act of July 20, 1876, c. 35, § 4; Pub. Stat. (1901) c. 227, § 7.
Shreve v. Cheesman, 69 Fed. 785, 789, 16 C. C. A. 413. See also Scatcherd v. Love, 166 Fed. 53, 91 C. C. A. 639; Michigan Aluminum Foundry Co. v. Aluminum Co. of America (C. C.) 190 Fed. 903, 904.
For instance, Rev. Stat. § 968 (Comp. St. § 1609), denying costs to a plaintiff or petitioner who recovers less than $500.
Crabtree v. Neff, 1 Bond, 554, Fed. Cas. No. 3,315; Hooe v. Alexandria, 1 Cranch, C. C. 98, Fed. Cas. No. 6,667; Bartels v. Redfield (C. C.) 47 Fed. 708; Trinidad Asphalt Paving Co. v. Robinson (C. C.) 52 Fed. 347; United States v. Minneapolis, etc., Ry. Co. (D. C.) 235 Fed. 951, 953; West End St. Ry. Co. v. Malley, 246 Fed. 625, 627, 158 C. C. A. 581; Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Pearce, 253 Fed. 960, 962, 165 C. C. A. 402; Wheeler v. Taft (C. C. A.) 261 Fed. 978.
The general rule that in actions at law the prevailing party is entitled as of right to the taxable costs prevails in New York; and there is a further provision that when plaintiff demands a judgment for a sum of money only, the plaintiff, if prevailing, is entitled to the costs whether the suit be one at law or in equity. Murtha v. Curley, 92 N. Y. 359; Norton v. Fancher, 92 Hun, 463, 36 N. Y. Supp. 1032.