Case Name: Lemuel May and Another, Plaintiffs in Error, versus John Haven
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1812-10
Citations: 8 Tyng 325
Docket Number: 
Parties: Lemuel May and Another, Plaintiffs in Error, versus John Haven.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 9
Pages: 293–294

Head Matter:
Lemuel May and Another, Plaintiffs in Error, versus John Haven.
Where a report of referees is recommitted to the same referees, they are not obliged to alter it, but may again return it, without hearing the parties, if they are fully satisfied of the correctness of it.
The judgment, which the writ of error in this case' was brought to reverse, was rendered by the Court of Common Pleas for this county, September term, 1810, in an action of trespass, wherein the defendant in error was plaintiff, and the plaintiffs in error were defendants.
From the record sent up, it appeared that, at March term, 1810, the action was, by a rule of the court, submitted to three referees, and it was agreed that final judgment should be rendered on the report of the three referees, or of any two of them.
The three referees made a report in favor of the plaintiff", which was recommitted to them by order of court; but for what cause or at whose motion did not appear.
The action being continued, two of the referees made a report, in which they certify that they had met the parties; that the third referee was duly notified of the time and place of meeting, but declined again attending; wherefore, without any further hearing of the parties, they report as before, with additional costs of the referees.
* This last report was accepted by the court, and judgment rendered accordingly.
Tillinghast and Baylies,
for the plaintiffs in error, suggested the following errors in the record : —
1. That the judgment was rendered upon the report of two referees only, made in the absence of the third, and also without hearing the parties, or any testimony or allegations relating to the cause.
2. That the report subscribed by all the referees became void on its recommitment by the court, who refused to accept the same.

Opinion:
By the Court.
The point principally relied on by the plaintiffs in error is, that the first report had lost its effect, and had become a nullity, by the recommitment of it to the referees. But we think otherwise. Reports are frequently recommitted by the court, when, upon their being read, some defect, in point of form, is discovered ; and this without the suggestion of either party. Or, if a report is recommitted on the motion of one of the parties, who thinks himself aggrieved by it, still no obligation is thereby imposed on the ref crees to alter the report. They may return it without alteration, if they are fully satisfied of the correctness of it.
Whitman and Ellis for the defendant in error.
Judgment affirmed with costs.