Cooper v. Coates

Cooper v. Coates. Depreciation. Under the act of 1781, auditors were appointed, only where there was a dispute about depreciation. On a rule to show cause why auditors should not be appointed, under the act of assembly, the defendant’s deposition was read, wherein he swore that no question of depreciation could arise in this cause. Hallowell, for the plaintiff. Sergeant, for the defendant. Act 3d April 1781. 1 Sm Laws, 519. [MAJORITY — By the Court.] By the Court. The words are so very general and comprehensive, that, if the spirit and intention of the law, expressed in the preamble and other sections, were not to be considered, they would include every case arising between the periods mentioned in the act. But it is inconsistent with the constitution, and with justice, that the trial by jury should be taken away in this manner ; and therefore, the courts of justice have always determined, that auditors shall be appointed only where there is a dispute about the depreciation. The rule discharged.