Armstrong v. Munster
Armstrong v. Munster
Opinion of the Court
This bill in equity was brought to obtain relief from a mutual mistake made in the discharge of a mortgage upon real estate. The defendants, in their answers, admitted the mistake but set up certain allegations of fraud and false representations on the part of the plaintiff in connection with the original sale out of which the mortgage arose.
There were controverted questions both of law and fact and after the pleadings were made up, the cause was referred under rule of court with the- stipulation that judgment on the report of the referee should be final and conclusive.
The referee, after a full hearing, filed his report in court, sustaining the bill and prescribing the form of decree that should be entered, which was in effect his finding upon the law and facts of the case. No objections to the report were filed by the defendants, as required by Court Rule XXI, and it was duly accepted. A final decree, in strict accordance with the report, was subsequently made and entered by a single Justice and from that decree an appeal was seasonably taken by the defendants to this court.
The appeal cannot be sustained. The opinion of this court in the very recent case of Savings Bank v. Herrick, 100 Maine, 494, is decisive of the case at bar. The language of that opinion applies here with equal force. "The cause was referred without any con
The decree here was in exact accordance with the report of the referee and the same result must follow.
Appeal dismissed.
Decree below affirmed with additional costs.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Margaret J. Armstrong v. Martin J. A. Munsters.
- Status
- Published