
    Samuel Noyes, Petitioner, versus Nathan Noyes. Nathan Noyes, in Error, versus Samuel Noyes.
    Referees under St» 1786, c* 21, who had agreed upon their report before the sitting . of the court to which it was returned, but had signed and dated it on the second day of the term, were not allowed to amend by altering the date, so as to make it properly returnable at that term according to their intention.
    The parties on the 22d of June, 1821, entered into an agreement of reference before a justice of the peace, pursuant to St. 1786, c. 21. The referees returned their report to the Court of Common Pleas on the second day of the term held in September following, and the report bore date on the same day. It was shown to the counsel for Nathan Noyes, the respondent, who made no objection to the acceptance of it, and it was thereupon accepted and judgment rendered thereon
    
      The respondent brought a writ of error to reverse this judgment, because the report was not made to the court at the next term after it was completed. (Si. ubi. sup. § 3.)
    The petitioner, at December term 1821 of the same court, prayed that the referees might be'ordered and permitted to amend the report in respect to the date, or that it might be accepted and judgment rendered as of that term. In support of his petition he offered the affidavit of the referees, who testified that they did not sign their report until the day of the date, but that they had agreed upon it several days before the sitting of the court in September, and intended to return it at that term ; that they affixed the date through inadvertency, not knowing that it would be an objection to its being then returned ; and that they were ready to rectify the report, if they might be permitted to do it. The Court of Common Pleas refused to grant the petition, and an appeal from their decision was made to this Court.
    
      Andrews and Pickering, in support of the petition,
    insisted that the date of the report was a mere clerical error, and might have been amended by the Court of Common Pleas. It was immaterial when the report was dated. As in other instruments, the important question was, when was the act done, and not what was the date contained in the instrument. The referees certify like a returning officer, and they want to amend their report. Their right to amend stands on different grounds from that of the party himself.' They are entitled to more credence and deference, being quasi officers of the Court, and acting under a judicial commission. Their affidavits furnish something to amend by, and the Court have power, although a writ of error has been brought, to order the amendment. St 1784, c. 28, § 14; Hamilton v. Boiden, 1 Mass. Rep. 50, Perkins v. Burbank, 2 Mass. Rep. 83; Hutchinson v. Crossen, 10 Mass. Rep. 251; Thatcher v. Miller, 11 Mass. Rep 413, and 13 Mass. Rep. 270; Wells v. Dench, 1 Mass. Rep 232; Tidd’s Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 661, notes u and y; Cogan v. Ebden, 1 Burr. 383; Mayo v. Archer, 1 Str. 513; Eliot v. Skypp, Cro. Car. 338; Lee v. Curtiss, 17 Johns. Rep. 86; Dumond v. Carpenter, 2 Johns. Rep. 184 ; Close v. Gillespie, 3 Johns. Rep. 526; Williams v. Rogers. 5 Johns. Rep 163 Pease v. Morgan, 7 Johns. Rep. 468; Bull. N. P. 320.
    Gernsh, for the respondent,
    said the referees had given the true date to their report, and that there was no case to authorize them to substitute their intention for the act itself. Williams v. Brackett, 8 Mass. Rep. 240.
   Per Curiam.

The referees did not make up their report until the day on which it was signed. They had indeed previously agreed what their decision should be, but each of them might have refused his signature on that day. If the report had been written and signed before the sitting of the court to which it was returned, and had been misdated, the amendment might be allowed as of a clerical error. But the report was not made until it was actually signed, any more than a deed or bond would be.

The petitioner took nothing by his petition and the judgment was reversed. 
      
       See Walker v. Melcher, 14 Mass. Rep. 148; Mott v. Anthony, 5 Mass. R. 489; Southworth v. Bradford, ibid. 524; Durell v. Merrill, 1 Mass. R. 411; Gerrish v. Morss, 2 Pick. 625.
     