Case Name: Kauffman vs. Copous' Executors
Court: New York Court for the Correction of Errors
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1836-12
Citations: 16 Wend. 478
Docket Number: 
Parties: Kauffman vs. Copous’ Executors.
Judges: 
Reporter: Wendell's Reports
Volume: 16
Pages: 478–481

Head Matter:
Kauffman vs. Copous’ Executors.
Where the supreme court have refused to set aside a report of referees, and the party conceiving himself aggrieved is desirous to sue out a writ of error, he must obtain a special or supplemental report from the referees in the nature of a lili of exceptions or special verdict, and have the same entered upon the record; it is not allowable to place upon the record the conflicting affidavits of the parties upon which the motion was heard in the supreme court, and when they are placed upon the record, it seems the writ of error will be dismissed unless the case is so clear as to admit of no doubt as to the correctness of the decisions below.
Error from the supreme court. This was a proceeding in the supreme court under the statute authorizing a reference where a claim is presented against the estate of a deceased person, and its justice is doubted by the executor or administrator. 2 R. S. 88, § 36. A report was made in favor of the executors of Mary Copous. Application was made by Kauffman to the supreme court to set it aside, alleging various irregularities and errors on the part of the referees, founded on an affidavit of Kauffman, accompanied by numerous accounts current and other documents produced on the hearing of the application, which was resisted on affidavits made- by two of the referees and by the attorney of the executors. The supreme court confirmed the report and rendered judgment accordingly, making, however, an order that a statement of the facts of the case should be drawn up and incorporated in the record, so that Kauffman might be enabled to prosecute a writ of error. A record was made up; in which, after stating the above facts, affidavits and documents produced on the motion to set aside the report were set forth verbatim, which the record stated both parties consented should be regarded as the statement directed by the rule of court, and then followed a judgment in the usual form for the amount reported, together with costs.Kauffman sued out a writ of error.
The cause was submitted to this court on written arguments, and after advisement, an opinion was delivered by the Chancellor in favor of an affirmance of the judgment of the supreme court, in which all the members present (twenty-six in number) concurred. The chancellor held that there was no irregularity or error on the part of the referees. The only part of the opinion deemed important to be reported is the following:

Opinion:
By the Chancellor.
The judgment which we are called upon to review by this writ of error, was rendered upon the report of referees upon a submission by the parties, under the thirty-sixth section of the article of the revised statutes relative to the duties of executors and administrators in the payment of debts and legacies. 2 R.S. 88. Though in form a reference as upon a claim made by Kauffman against the estate of the decedent, it was, in fact, a proceeding to have the accounts between him and the estate settled in a summary and expeditious way, without the employment of counsel or the expense of a protracted law suit. The statute under which these proceedings were instituted directs that they shall be conducted in all respects as if the reference had been made in an action in which the court might by law direct a reference, and that judgment may be entered upon the report of the referees, in the same manner as in ordinary suits. There is no doubt, therefore, as to the power of the supreme court to set aside the report of the referees either for irregularity, or for a mistake in point of law, or because it is against the weight of evidence. But this court is authorized to reverse the decision of the SUpretne court only for some error in point of law, arising from the facts placed upon the record of the court below f°rm °f a special or supplemental report of the referees in the nature of a bill of exceptions or special verdict. The revised statutes evidently contemplate a report of the referees upon the matters of fact, in reference to questions of law which may have arisen out of those facts, or as to. the admission or rejection of evidence, as the only proper mode of placing such questions of law upon the record for the purpose of having the decision of the court below reviewed upon a writ of error. The forty-seventh section of the article of the revised statutes relative to consolidating and referring causes, 2 R. S. 384, authorizes the court in which the reference is pending to require the referees to report their decision in admitting or rejecting any witness, in allowing or overruling any question to a witness or the answer thereto, and all other proceedings by them, together with the testimony before them, and their reasons for allowing or disallowing any claim of either party. The object of this provision was to have authentic evidence upon the record as to the several questions, intended to be discussed upon a writ of error; and the revisors, in their note to this section, repudiate the idea of placing upon the record the ex parte and conflicting affidavits of the parties or their counsel as the proper evidence upon which to settle the law. When the supreme court, therefore, gave permission to the plaintiff, Kauffman,. to have a statement of the facts drawn up and incorporated in the record for the purpose of enabling him to bring a writ of error thereon, he should have had the facts prepared in the form of a special report from the referees, embracing the facts sworn to by the referees, and by the attorney of the executors, and such facts stated in the affidavit of Kauffman as were not contradicted by "the referees—rejecting all that part which relates to transactions previous to the reference, as improper; or what would have been the more correct course, his counsel should have asked the court to direct the referees to make a special report as to all the matters stated in the af fidavits, so far as was necessary to raise the questions of law which were properly to be discussed upon a writ of error. It was altogether irregular for the attorney for the adverse party to consent to place this incongruous and con-fussed mass of matter upon the record, as a compliance with the order of the supreme court, and if there was any real question as to the merits of the case, or any doubt as to the correctness of the decision of the referees in point of law, I should be disposed to dismiss this writ of error without costs to either party, and give to the plaintiff in error permission to apply to the supreme court to direct the referees to make a special report of the facts out of which the questions of law arise, to be incorporated into the record. As however, the case is perfectly free of doubt, in my mind, both as to law and fact, we shall probably save much trouble, and prevent expense to the parties if we dispose of the case upon its merits, so far as we can understand it from the papers before us. [The Chancellor, after considering the several questions presented in argument, concluded by expressing the opinion that the judgment of the supreme court ought to be affirmed; and it was accordingly affirmed.]