Narrative Opinion Summary
This case concerns a breach of contract dispute referred to an auditor, where the primary issue involves the timeliness of the auditor's report. The report was filed five days late, prompting the defendant to file a motion to strike it, which was denied, while the plaintiff's motion for judgment based on the report was granted. The defendant appealed, arguing that the delay rendered the report void, citing precedents from Mott v. Anthony and Southworth v. Bradford. The appellate court distinguished these cases as they involved referees, where timely filing was jurisdictional, unlike the auditor’s situation. The court cited G.L. c. 221, § 62, noting that while an auditor who files late is not entitled to fees, the statute does not prohibit acceptance of a late report. The judge's decision implied an extension for filing the report, which was deemed within judicial discretion and not an abuse thereof. Consequently, the defendant’s exceptions were overruled, and the plaintiff's judgment was upheld, reaffirming the court's broad discretion in matters concerning auditor reports.
Legal Issues Addressed
Comparison with Referee Actsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court distinguished the cited precedents, noting the difference in jurisdictional requirements between auditors and referees under the 'Referee Act.'
Reasoning: It distinguished the cited cases, noting they pertained to referees under the 'Referee Act,' where timely filing was deemed jurisdictional, while the auditor's late filing did not affect the court's jurisdiction.
Court's Discretion in Auditor's Report Timingsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court exercised its discretion to allow the late filing of the auditor’s report, effectively granting a five-day extension.
Reasoning: The judge's decision to allow the plaintiff's motion was interpreted as granting a five-day extension for filing the report, which the court deemed as not an abuse of discretion.
Late Filing of Auditor's Reportsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that the late filing of the auditor’s report did not automatically revoke the order of reference and was not jurisdictional.
Reasoning: The court found that the late filing did not automatically revoke the order of reference.
Statutory Guidelines for Auditor Feessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Under G.L. c. 221, § 62, the statute allows discretion in accepting late reports but denies fees for untimely reports.
Reasoning: According to G.L. c. 221, § 62, an auditor who fails to file a report on time is not entitled to fees, but no statute prevents the acceptance of a late report.