Case Name: Long versus Rhodes
Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Maine
Decision Date: 1853
Citations: 36 Me. 108
Docket Number: 
Parties: Long versus Rhodes.
Judges: Shepley, C. J., and Tenney and Hathaway, J. J., concurred.
Reporter: Maine Reports
Volume: 36
Pages: 108–109

Head Matter:
Long versus Rhodes.
The discretionary power of the Court, to accept, reject, or recommit a report of referees, is only a judicial one, to be exercised upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case.
The wishes of one of the parties, dissatisfied with the award, or the .willingness of the referees to have the case again opened and more fully considered, furnish no ground for rejecting or recommitting the referees’ report.
"Where no new evidence is offered, and no prejudice, bias or mistake, on the part of the referees established, their award must be accepted.
On Exceptions from the District Court, Rice, J.
Submission, under the statute, to A. O. Spaulding, Cephas Starrett and Anson Butler, whose award in favor of Long was presented for acceptance.
The defendant filed a written motion, praying that the submission and report for the causes set forth, might be recommitted.
The reasons set forth in the motion were, that the defendant believed the referees had mistaken some of the facts on which they had based their judgment, and that they would upon mature consideration correct the errors and render a just award. He also presented a paper, signed by the referees, saying, that the hearing before them was informal, the principal evidence consisted of the statements of the parties, not under oath and without counsel. This paper concluded thus, “ one of the parties, who is disappointed and feels aggreived by the result to which we arrived, having expressed a wish for the cause to be again opened and more fully and maturely considered, the referees, after some reflection have concluded, that it may be well to do so, and hereby certify their willingness that the rule and report shall be re-committed accordingly for that purpose.”
The District Judge refused to re-commit the report and ordered that it be accepted. To which order the defendant filed exceptions.
Lowell & Foster, for defendant.
Wilson, for plaintiff.

Opinion:
Howard, J. —
The late District Court had discretionary power to accept, reject, or recommit reports of referees for further consideration. R. S. c. 138, § 9. By statute, (1845, c. 168,) when such reports are before this Court, on exceptions, it has the same discretionary power over them as the District Court possessed. Rut that discretion must be exercised judicially, and upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case.
The report of the referees is prima facie correct, as the decision of the tribunal selected by the parties, and must be accepted, unless some satisfactory reason be shown for disposing of it in a different manner. The case presents no facts or circumstances from which we can perceive any ground for overruling the decision of the District Court. No newly discovered evidence is pretended; and no prejudice or bias, or mistake, on the part of the referees, is shown; and they express no doubts of the correctness of their conclusion, or dissatisfaction with the result. The wishes of a party dissatisfied with the award, or the willingness of the referees to have the case "again opened, and more fully and maturely considered," furnishes no ground for rejecting, or recommitting the report, and it must be accepted. Exceptions overruled.
Shepley, C. J., and Tenney and Hathaway, J. J., concurred.