Grand Lodge of I.O.O.F. v. Morrison

• Decision Date: 20 January 1880
• Citation: 4 N.W. 739,42 Mich. 521
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: GRAND LODGE OF I.O.O.F. OF MICHIGAN v. MORRISON and others.

4 N.W. 739

42 Mich. 521

GRAND LODGE OF I.O.O.F. OF MICHIGAN v. MORRISON and others.

Supreme Court of Michigan

January 20, 1880

There is no general rule requiring a referee to supplement his general findings with special findings in answer to particular requests. Certain requests to find in this case and failure of referee to specifically find thereon, held immaterial. In an action upon a bond for the safe-keeping and proper disposal of funds, the fact that a referee finds an amount exceeding the penalty of the bond is not ground for reversal.

Error to Ingham.

M.V. & R.A. Montgomery, for plaintiff in error.

S.L Kilbourne and H.P. Henderson, for defendants in error.

GRAVES J.

The plaintiff, a corporation under the laws of this state organized for benevolent purposes, chose the defendant Morrison for their treasurer, and, in order to secure his proper accountability for such fund and property as he might at any time hold as such treasurer, the lodge took a bond executed by himself, as principal, and the other defendants as sureties, in the penal sum of $10,000.

Believing him to be delinquent in his trust the lodge elected another in his place, and brought this action on the bond. The court, pursuant to stipulation, referred the case to a gentleman of high character and much experience, and after a patient and extended examination he reported, on the thirteenth February, 1879, that Morrison was then a defaulter for $10,269.20, and he concluded, as matter of law, that the plaintiff ought to recover that amount, with interest from the date of the report.

The defendants filed ten exceptions and the circuit court sustained them, and entered judgment for the defendants. The plaintiff brought error. All the exceptions are now abandoned except the last two, and they are only faintly insisted on.

They have no merit. The first complains that the referee did not specially find in answer to five specific requests made therefor by defendants' counsel.

In the first place, the requests call for nothing beyond the findings made, of any apparent materiality, and in the next place there is no regulation which requires a referee to supplement his general finding by special replies to specific requests dictated by counsel.

The remaining exception, not waived, is to the referee's conclusion of law that the plaintiff recover the amount reported, and the position is that the whole finding is bad because...