Case Name: Richards, Truesdell & Co. plaintiffs below, vs. Horace Wheeler, defendant below
Court: Vermont Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Vermont
Decision Date: 1827-01
Citations: 2 Aik. 161
Docket Number: 
Parties: Richards, Truesdell & Co. plaintiffs below, vs. Horace Wheeler, defendant below.
Judges: 
Reporter: Aikens
Volume: 2
Pages: 161–162

Head Matter:
Richards, Truesdell & Co. plaintiffs below, vs. Horace Wheeler, defendant below.
— IN ERROR.
Addison,
January, 1827.
A writ of error will not lie to reverse a determination of fclie county court, in rejecting a report of auditors.
THE plaintiffs brought their action against the defendant, on a book account, and having obtained a report of auditors in their favour, the same was returned to the county court. The defendant filed objections against the acceptance of the report, and the county court, upon consideration thereof, rejected the report.
It was to reverse this determination of the county court, that the present writ of error was brought.
Skinner, Ch. J. There is no principle upon which this writ of error can be sustained The record shows, that the plaintiffs instituted a suit against the defendant upon book account; the same was sent to auditors, who, having adjusted the accounts of the parties, found a balance in favour of the plaintiffs of $466, 41 cts debt, and made report thereof to the county court, June term, A. D. 1825; upon which, at April term, 1826, the plaintiffs moved the acceptance of the i’eport, and that judgment be rendered thereon. The court, for some cause, and it is immaterial what, were dissatisfied with the report, and having rejected it, of course refused to render judgment in the case. The account ought regularly to have been sent again to auditors. The plaintiff complains, that the court ought to have rendered judgment in his favour according to the report, and seeks relief by writ of error.
A writ of error is styled in law, a commission to judges of a superiour court, by which they are authorized to examine the' records upon which a judgment was given in an inferior court, and on suc^ examination to afBrm or reverse the same, according to law; and Lord Coke says, without a judgment or an award, in nature of a judgment, no writ of error doth lie. (2 _g«c. ^ 187. — Co. Lit. 288.) The statute says, the supreme court shall have power to examine, and reverse or affirm, any judgment in civil actions rendered in any county court upon a writ of error.
From the record before us there is no judgment to be reversed or affirmed ; therefore, no judgment can be rendered here, and the process must be dismissed.
Peter Starr and S. S. Phelps, for the plaintiffs in error.
Noah Hawley and R. B. Bates, for the defendant in error.

Opinion:
Pentiss J.
The rejection of the report of auditors is an interlocutory proceeding, and for aught that appears, the cause is still undetermined in the county court. A writ of error might as well lie in any other case of interlocutory judgments, as in the present case.