Briggs v. Gilman

• Decision Date: 27 October 1879
• Citation: 127 Mass. 530
• Parties: Sarah P. Briggs, administratrix, v. John Gilman
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

127 Mass. 530

Sarah P. Briggs, administratrix, v. John Gilman

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

October 27, 1879

Worcester. Contract upon an account annexed for goods sold and delivered to the defendant by Russell Briggs, the plaintiff's intestate. Answer, a general denial.

In the Superior Court, the case was referred to an auditor, at the hearing before whom the plaintiff offered in evidence certain books purporting to be books of account of the intestate. The defendant objected to their admission, and, at his request the auditor reported all the evidence introduced before him bearing on the question of their admissibility. The auditor in his report stated that, upon this evidence, and upon an inspection of the books, he deemed them admissible, and admitted them in evidence; that the plaintiff also introduced other evidence tending to show a sale and delivery of the goods; that the defendant offered no evidence; and that the auditor therefore found for the plaintiff in a certain sum.

At the trial, the defendant objected to the admission of the auditor's report, on the ground therein stated. But Dewey, J., admitted it in evidence to establish the plaintiff's case; the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff; and the defendant alleged exceptions.

Exceptions overruled.

W. S B. Hopkins, for the defendant.

J. Hopkins, for the plaintiff, was not called upon.

Gray C. J. Endicott & Lord, JJ., absent.

OPINION

Gray C. J.

The object of the statute by which the courts are authorized to refer cases to auditors, and to require their reports to be read as prima facie evidence at the trial, although neither party may desire it, is to simplify and elucidate the issues to be tried. Gen. Sts. c. 121, § 46. Fogg v. Farr, 16 Gray 396. Clark v. Fletcher, 1 Allen 53. If one of the findings of the auditor appears to the court, upon the facts reported by him, to be erroneous in matter of law, or in excess of the authority conferred by the rule of reference, the jury may be instructed accordingly, and so much of his report stricken out, leaving the rest to have its proper weight and effect. Jones v. Stevens, 5 Met. 373. Ropes v. Lane, 9 Allen 502. Morrill v. Keyes, 14 Allen 222. Snowling v. Plummer Granite Co. 108 Mass 100. Peru Steel Co. v. Whipple Manuf. Co. 109 Mass. 464. But an objection to a portion of the evidence upon which the auditor has based his conclusion cannot be taken, as matter of right, except by...