Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Hagner v. Musgrove, 1784 — 1 U.S. 83 · caselaw · US
General
Hagner v. Musgrove
1 U.S. 831 Dall. 83·Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas·1784·PA
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
*Hagner v. Musgrove.
Reference. — Practice.
Report of referees set aside, where it appeared, that they had examined witnesses in the absence of the parties.
Levy, for the plaintiff. Lewis, for the defendant.
[MAJORITY]
The plaintiff having had a verdict in the absence of the defendant, and having agreed to withdraw it, and submit to a reference, three persons, nominated by the court, accordingly met. Upon entering into the case, the parties, who were present, began a warm altercation, which proving troublesome to the referees, they ordered the disputants to withdraw, and called the witnesses, one after another, examining them separately out of the hearing of both plaintiff and defendant, and finally reported in favor of the former.
These facts being established, the report was set aside, on motion of the defendant’s counsel,
Hollingsworth v. Leiper, post, p. 161. Chaplin v. Kirwan, post, p. 187. Passmore v. Pettit, 4 Dall. 271.