Case Name: John Warder against William Parker and Moore Wharton
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1799-12
Citations: 2 Yeates 513
Docket Number: 
Parties: John Warder against William Parker and Moore Wharton.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases adjudged in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Yeates)
Volume: 2
Pages: 513–514

Head Matter:
John Warder against William Parker and Moore Wharton.
After a fair hearing, reports of referees will only be set aside for manifest injustice, or a clear error in law or fact.
The plaintiff excepted to a report of referees, finding a balance in bis favor of 931 dollars and 22 cents, on the following specified grounds: 1st, The referees have adopted a clear mistake of a principle of partnership, allowing to the defendants a considerable sum by an erroneous statement on a joint transaction, in which the parties were equally interested, when in fact the adventure yielded no profit, but was attended with a heavy loss. 2d, The referees have mistaken a principle of law, and admitted a charge of damages in favor of the defendants against the plaintiff on protested bills of exchange, of which the defendants were the drawers, and on which they have not paid, nor or liable to pay any damages. 3d, The referees have refused to allow the plaintiff damages on certain foreign bills of exchange, of which the deféndants were drawers in this city, and which were returned protested for nonpayment, and due notice given thereof by the plaintiff, the holder. 4th, The referees have reported in favor of the defendants when they ought to have reported in favor of the plaintiff.
The plaintiff examined one of the referees in support of his exceptions, but failed utterly in his proof.

Opinion:
By the court.
After a fair and patient investigation by judges of the parties' own choosing, who have finally decided on the matters submitted to them, tbe proofs must be very strong to justify the court's interposition and setting aside the report. But'where manifest injustice has been done, where a clear error has occured either in law or fact, and the same is made plainly to appear to the court, it is their duty to exercise their super intending authority. Such have been our repeated decisions, and such is the law of the land.
Messrs. Ingersoll and Rawle,pro quer.
Messrs. E. Tilghman, M'Kean and Hallowel, pro def.
The plaintiff took judgment on his report.