Case Name: ALEXANDER L. SHAW, Appellant, v. WILLIAM N. SMITH, Respondent
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1867-01
Citations: 1 Trans. App. 238
Docket Number: 
Parties: ALEXANDER L. SHAW, Appellant, v. WILLIAM N. SMITH, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Transcript Appeals
Volume: 1
Pages: 238–239

Head Matter:
ALEXANDER L. SHAW, Appellant, v. WILLIAM N. SMITH, Respondent.
Appeal—-Ground, of Objections must be stated to Referee.
Where, upon a hearing before a referee, objections are taken to certain questions propounded to witnesses, without stating the ground of the objections, on an appeal such general objections cannot be made available upon review.
January 1, 1858, and for some years prior thereto, the parties carried on business in the city of Hew York as copartners in the willow and wooden-ware business. There was no agreement as to the time the partnership should continue. On the 7th of that month the Defendant gave notice of dissolution, and took exclusive possession of the assets of the firm. Thereupon the Plaintiff commenced this action for an account of the partnership,- and to recover his interest therein. It was referred to a referee to take an account of the partnership property and of the interest of the respective parties. The account was taken, by which it was found that the entire assets of the firm were insufficient to pay its debts and the balance owing by the firm to the Defendant; and that the Plaintiff was indebted to the firm and should on account thereof pay to the Defendant the sum of six hundred and fifty dollars and twenty-seven cents; that the latter should pay the debts of the firm, and have to his own use the assets of the firm.
The Plaintiff took various exceptions to the report, raising various questions of fact. The report was confirmed by the Special Term, and j udgment rendered in accordance therewith,which was affirmed on appeal by the General Term, from which the Plaintiff appealed to this Court.
H. D. Lapaugh for Appellant.
A. Gibbs for Eespondent.

Opinion:
Grover, J.
In looking over the papers in this case ! am unable to discover any question so presented as to enable this Court to notice it. This Court can in this class of cases only review ques tions of law raised in the Court below to the rulings, upon which proper exceptions were taken. The exceptions taken to report of the referee present questions of fact only. Upon the hearing before the referee certain questions were objected to by the Plaintiff's counsel, which objections were overruled by the referee, to which rulings the Plaintiff's' counsel excepted, but no ground for any of the objections was stated. Such general objections stating no ground therefor are not available upon review. In short, they amount to nothing, only to lumber up the case.
The judgment appealed from must be affirmed, and I should be in favor of giving damages to the Bespondent, was I not impressed by a perusal of the case that the Appellant had had rather a hard measure applied to his ease, probably resulting from a failure in calling attention to the point. The Bespondent appears to have got all the bad debts for nothing, and I apprehend a larger judgment than a close examination of the accounts would entitle him to. But there being no exceptions on these points, this Court can afford no redress should it find the judgment incorrect in these particulars.
All concur. Affirmed.