COMMON PLEAS, Philadelphia
County:
KUNCKLE verʃus KUNCKLE.
E
XCEPTIONS were filed to the report of Referees in this caufe; which were argued on the 20th of November, by Wilʃon and Tedd, for the Defendant ; and Sergeant for the Plaintiff.
The president now ftated the material circumftances; and delivered the opinion of the Court as follows:
SHIPPEN, Preʃident.– This is a motion to fet afide the report of Referees, on two grounds: 1ft, For the mifbehaviour of the two notice to the third Referee, who did not fign it. The evidence by no means fupports this objection, as it appears that the two Referees had agreed upon the fubftance of their report in the prefence of the third Referee, who declared his difagreement, and faid the others could make the report without him.
The 2d objection is to the report itfelf, as awarding money to be paid by the Defendant on one fide, and making conveyances of land and a lot of ground, and taking up a bond and mortgage in the Loan Office, by the Plaintiff, on the other fide. The ground of this objection is, that the Court cannot do compleat juftice or both fides, as an execution may iffue for the money againft the Defendant, and the Plaintiff cannot be compelled by the Court to perform his part; at leaft, that the remedies are not the fame on both fides, namely by execution.
The
