Case Name: William M'Pherson, administrator of Robert M'Pherson, assignee of William Cathcart against John Hamilton
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1796-03
Citations: 2 Yeates 40
Docket Number: 
Parties: William M’Pherson, administrator of Robert M’Pherson, assignee of William Cathcart against John Hamilton.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases adjudged in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Yeates)
Volume: 2
Pages: 40–41

Head Matter:
William M’Pherson, administrator of Robert M’Pherson, assignee of William Cathcart against John Hamilton.
On the plea of payment to a bond with leave, &c., evidence shall not be received to over haul a report of referees, confirmed by a court of competent jurisdiction.
Debt on bond, tried before Shippen and Smith, Justices, at York, May assizes 1794, and verdict for the plaintiff.
On a motion for a hew trial, Smith J. reported a state of the evidence offered, as follows.. The defendant’s counsel, under the plea of payment, with leave to give the special matters in evidence, offered to show that the plaintiff’s intestate and the defendant had settled their administration account, as administrators, on the estate of Hans Hamilton deceased, in York county, und that it appeared thereby that the plaintiff’s intestate was not entitled to interest on three bonds, of which the present was one, executed by the defendant to Cathcart, each conditioned for the payment of 200Z. and that as much money was paid to him on account of these bonds, as he was entitled to receive from the defendant; that the defendant was not allowed any interest on his disbursemen ts respecting the said estate in his account aforesaid; he also offered to give in Evidence the various declarations of the plaintiff’s intestate, respecting the said three bonds, in tlic presence of the referees appointed by the Orphans’ Court of York county to settle the said administration account 5 and further, that a payment of 300/. made by the defendant on the 12th May 1778, ought not to have been reduced by the referees by the scale of deprecation, but that he should have been credited with the full amount thereof in specie.
To this evidence the plaintiff’s counsel excepted, and contended, that it appeared on inspection of the said administration account, the plaintiff’s intestate had charged himself with the full amount of the bond in question, and that by mutual consent, all matters in controversy bad been submitted to tlie decision of intelligent referees, selected by the Orphan’s Court, who had fully investigated the same, and reported that the sum of 11. 14s. 2d. was due by the plaintiff’s intestate to tlie estate of Hans Hamilton deceased, wbicb report bad been confirmed by the Orphan’s Court, on 3d May 1786, and no appeal entered thereupon; consequently, that the defendant was thereby concluded.
On the trial, tlie justices were of opinion, that as the defence was intended to unravel the decree of tlie Orpans’ Court, founded on the report of referees chosen mutually, the evidence could not be received.
After some few observations made by Messrs. Tilghman and C. Smith for the plaintiff, and Air. Ingersoll for the defendant, the court said, that the testimony offered by tlie defendant bad been properly rejected. The award of referees confirmed by a court of competent jurisdiction, cannot be inquired into in this collateral way. It was conclusive as to the points then in question, and could no't be overhauled in the present suit. If the defendant conceived himself injured, he should have applied to the Orphan’s Court to set aside the report; if justice was refused him by that tribunal, which will not be presumed, lie had his remedy by appeal, provided the facts were sufficiently strong to warrant this court’s interposition.

Opinion:
Hule discharged, and judgment for the plaintiff.