Opinion
Opinion March 28, 1933.
EXCEPTIONS. RULES OF COURT.
Exceptions to the acceptance of a report of referees, when permitted by the rule of reference must be in conformity to Rule XXI of the Rules of the Supreme and Superior Courts, which requires that the objection to the report of the referees must be filed in writing. Non-compliance with this rule renders exceptions invalid.
On exceptions by plaintiff. An action on the case to recover on certain alleged promissory notes. The cause was referred to a referee with right to except as to question of law reserved. To the acceptance of the report of the referee defendant excepted, but not by written objection. Exceptions overruled. The case sufficiently appears in the opinion.
Myer Epstein, C. S. Roberts, for plaintiff.
J. H. Montgomery, for defendant.
SITTING: PATTANGALL, C. J., DUNN, STURGIS, BARNES, THAXTER, JJ.
On exceptions. An action on instruments declared to be promissory notes was referred, with right to except as to questions of law.
Report was filed in due course. No objection, in writing, to the report of referee was filed or presented. Report was accepted at the term next after filing, and exceptions allowed.
Rules of Court are binding on Justices of the Superior Court. Camp Maqua Y. W. C. A. v. Poland, 130 Me. 485, 157 A. 859; Lincoln v. Hall, 131 Me. 310, 162 A. 267.
Because of non-compliance with No. XXI, Rules of Supreme and Superior Courts, requiring objection to report of a referee to be filed in writing, nothing is gained from the exceptions. It may be added that probably the application of the rule entails no hardship on the excepting party.
Exceptions overruled.