Slee v. Bloom
Opinion of the Court
The order for confirming the report was regular. The defendants were duly summoned to appear before the Master, on the 25th of February, to settle the report, which was filed on the 28th of February, and a rule entered that it stand confirmed, unless cause was shown against it in eight days.
Exceptions were not filed or served, until the 10th of March ; and this was too late, as the eight day rule had expired. The solicitor for the plaintiff refused to receive the exceptions, and he placed his refusal on strict right.
The defendants do not entitle themselves to be let in upon terms; because, the equity of the case, on this point, is against them. There had been a prior reference in the cause, in June, 1822; and the claims of the plaintiff, and the objections on the part of the defendants, were then laid before the Master., But the defendants did not then offer any of the objections, the rejection of which, on this last reference, form the ground of the exceptions*,
It would be vexatious and oppressive, to allow a party to keep back part of the objections, when he 'had, at the time, full knowledge of all the facts, and held them in reserve for a new reference. This would render litigation interminable. It was the duty of the party to have stated all their existing objections to the demand, before the Master, upon the first reference, and not raise them in this way in detail, so as to have a separate reference on each objection. If he does not make his objections in due season, he ought to be deemed to have waived them; and especially, he cannot come, on the foot of grace and favour, to have them received, after he has lost his opportunity, by the re* gular practice of the Court.
Motion denied, with cosjtsv
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.