Case Name: Jonathan and Andrew Hoyt v. James Clark
Court: Vermont Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Vermont
Decision Date: 1866-08
Citations: 39 Vt. 87
Docket Number: 
Parties: Jonathan and Andrew Hoyt v. James Clark.
Judges: 
Reporter: Vermont Reports
Volume: 39
Pages: 87–88

Head Matter:
Jonathan and Andrew Hoyt v. James Clark.
Booh Account. Auditor’s Bejpoit.
It is not error in an auditor not to make a special report, unless requested, for the purpose of taking the judgment of the court on questions of law raised before him.
Duty and province of an auditor in respect to what he should or may report.
Book Account. Exceptions were filed to the auditor’s report. The ease was heard on the report and exceptions at the December Term, 1865, Steele, J. presiding, and judgment was rendered for the plaintiff, to which the defendant excepted. The substance of the report is stated in the opinion, except that the plaintiffs’ account, both debt and credit, was set out in full in the report.
Georgs G. & George W. Gaboon, for the defendant,
maintained that the items allowed and disallowed should have been stated in the report. 5 Vt. 70 ; 1 Aik. 355. The auditor should have reported all the facts in reference to each litigated item, so that questions of law might have been properly raised. May & Go. v. Brownell, 3 Vt. 463 ; 11 Vt. 33 ; 15 Vt. 443. In respect to items allowed and disallowed he should have reported his reasons for so doing. Goodrich et al. v. Brew, 10 Vt. 137.
- — -, for the plaintiffs.
No copy of the exceptions was furnished the Reporter.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Barrett, J.
The auditor appends to his report a copy of the accounts of the parties, and says that he allows all the items of the plaintiffs' account, because, on the whole, he finds it supported by a fair balance of testimony. He says that the defendant's account, except what of it is embraced in credits by the plaintiff, is disregarded in ascertaining the sum due, because he finds it unsupported and without competent proof.
The auditor is to try and find the facts upon the proofs adduced before him ; .and his finding is conclusive, unless impeached by something contained in the report, or by other showing. Only the report is before us. That does not contain anything tending to show any error in matter of law or fact on his part. It was not his duty, nor his province, to rejjort the evidence, unless by reason of its relation to some question of law made before him, and on request; nor was it his duty to report special facts unless requested so to do, in order to present questions of law either as to the legal propriety of results at which he has arrived, or as to the ultimate rights of the parties. No such request was made. If the auditor should volunteer, as he may do, to make a special report for the purpose of presenting questions of law to the court, any error or legal imperfection in such report may be taken advantage of, the same as if he should make such report on request. But it is not error in him not to make a special report unless requested, for the purpose of taking the judgment of the court on questions of law raised before him.
So are all the cases and all the practice in this state.
Judgment is affirmed.