Staples v. Littlefield

• Decision Date: 26 June 1933
• Citation: 167 A. 171
• Parties: STAPLES v. LITTLEFIELD.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

167 A. 171

STAPLES

v. LITTLEFIELD.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

June 26, 1933.

Exceptions from Superior Court, York County.

Real action by Gertrude P. Staples against W. Charles Littlefield, referred with right of exceptions reserved. The report of the referees in favor of plaintiff was accepted by the presiding justice, and defendant brings exceptions.

Exceptions overruled.

Argued before PATTANGALL, C. J., and DUNN, STURGIS, BARNES, and THAXTER, JJ.

Willard & Willard, of Sanford, for plaintiff.

Ray P. Hanscom, of Ogunquit, and Robert B. Seidel, of Biddeford, for defendant.

PATTANGALL, Chief Justice.

Exceptions to acceptance of report of referees. Real action, plea general issue with brief statement disclaiming title to a portion of the premises declared upon. Referred under section 94, chapter 96, R. S. 1930, with right of exceptions reserved. Referees reported in favor of plaintiff. Defendant filed objections in writing to the acceptance of the report in accordance with rule XXL Presiding justice accepted report. Defendant's exceptions were filed and allowed.

Reports of referees are only open to attack on certain definite lines and according to certain definite procedure. When cases are referred without conditions or limitations, referees are final judges of both fact and law, in the absence of fraud, prejudice, or mistake, and objections to their findings based on these grounds must be filed in writing before their report is accepted to entitle the aggrieved party to a hearing before this court.

When cases are referred with the right of exception reserved as to matters of law, the same procedure is followed as to objections and the excepting party is confined to those specifically set out by him at nisi prius.

In the instant case, the right of exceptions was reserved and rule XXI was complied with. Defendant is, therefore, properly before this court to be heard on such matters as are put in issue by the objections filed by him.

The first of these is that there was no evidence before the referees tending to establish plaintiff's contentions. This raises a question of law upon which plaintiff is entitled to be heard. The remaining objections relate entirely to alleged fraud, prejudice, and misconduct on the part of the referees. They are absolutely unsupported by evidence or reasonable inference. They do not demand serious consideration and may be summarily dismissed without discussion or analysis.

Returning to the first objection—the rule is too well established to require more than passing mention that if there is any evidence to support the findings of fact by referees, exceptions will not lie. We are not, therefore, obliged to study the voluminous report of the evidence in this case for the purpose of ascertaining on which side the evidence preponderates or what testimony we regard as most entitled to...