Inhabitants of Winthrop v. Inhabitants of Readfield

• Decision Date: 27 April 1897
• Citation: 38 A. 93,90 Me. 235
• Parties: INHABITANTS OF WINTHROP v. INHABITANTS OF READFIELD.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

38 A. 93

90 Me. 235

INHABITANTS OF WINTHROP

v. INHABITANTS OF READFIELD.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

April 27, 1897.

(Official.)

Exceptions from supreme judicial court, Kennebec county.

Proceeding by the inhabitants of Winthrop against the inhabitants of Readfield to determine the location of a town line. The court overruled defendant's objections to the commissioners' report, and ordered it accepted, and defendant excepts. Exceptions overruled.

L. T. Carleton, for plaintiff.

E. O. & F. E. Beane, for defendant.

WISWELL, J. Various objections were made at nisi prius, by counsel for the town of Readfield, to the acceptance of the report of commissioners appointed by the court under Rev. St. c. 3, § 67, to ascertain and determine the location of a line in dispute between these towns. The court overruled the objections, and ordered the report accepted and confirmed, to which ruling and order exceptions were taken by the town of Readfield.

It becomes important to clearly understand exactly what power and discretion the court has in regard to the acceptance of a report of such commissioners.

It was formerly held in this state that, in proceedings under the statute referred to, the court had no further duty nor power than to appoint the commissioners; that the report need not be accepted, and that its acceptance was not authorized; that the report itself, if in accordance with law, was final and conclusive. Monmouth v. Leeds, 76 Me. 28.

But later, when the same proceeding came before the court upon a question of costs, this court, in an opinion by the chief justice, took occasion to express quite a different view upon this question, and referred to the fact that the earlier statutes expressly required that the report of the commissioners should be passed upon by the court, and that this provision had been omitted in the different revisions of the statutes with no legislative change, and simply for the sake of brevity. In that case it is said: "We do not see why the court should not so far control the proceeding that it may, as in cases before referees, prevent a report being final until satisfied of its freedom from fraud, and of its legal correctness." Monmouth v. Leeds, 79 Me. 171, 8 Atl. 828.

But it was not meant, by the expression "satisfied * * * of its legal correctness," that the court might review the conclusion of the commissioners upon any legal question that might arise. All findings of the commissioners upon questions of fact and conclusions upon matters of law involved are final. The only power and discretion of the court in this respect is to ascertain and determine if the report is legally correct in form, and if all the proceedings have been in compliance with the statute. The power of such commissioners is analogous to that of referees under an unrestricted rule of reference, who are judges of the law as well as of the facts involved, and whose conclusion, as shown by their direct and unconditional award, in the absence of any improper motive, will not be inquired into. So, in a matter...