
    Seth Miller versus Jedediah Miller.
    Exceptions will lie to a judgment rendered by the Court of Common Pleas upon a report of referees appointed under a rule of that court, although the rule state that such judgment shall be final.
    Assumpsit. The action was brought originally before the Court of Common Pleas and was referred under a rule, in which it was agreed that the judgment of that court upon the report of the referees should be final. The same court having ordered such report to be accepted, the defendant filed his exceptions to that direction.
    And now Wood, for the plaintiff,
    moved that the exceptions should be dismissed. The St. 1820, c. 79, § 6, allows a writ of error or an appeal, to any party aggrieved by the opinion or judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, “ rendered upon any issue at law or case stated by any parties, and where it is not agreed that the decision of such court shall be final.” Here it was agreed that such decision should be final.
    
      Eddy, contrà,
    
    contended that exceptions would lie in this case, under the 5th section of the statute, and that the restriction mentioned was applicable only to cases stated by the parties.
   Parker C. J.,

in giving the opinion of the Court, said, in substance, that the words in St. 1820, c. 79, § 5, allowing a party thinking himself aggrieved by any opinion, direction or judgment of said Court of Common Pleas, in any matter of law, to allege exceptions,” were very broad, but that some cases must be considered as not comprehended within them; as where the Court has not common law jurisdiction. Thus in a case * upon St. 1785, c. 66, § 2, respecting the maintenance of bastard children, it was determined that a bill of exceptions could not be sustained, because this Court could not enter such judgment as was required, nor grant a new trial. A similar decision was made in another case, where there was a submission to referees under St. 1786, c. 21. That was a case of special jurisdiction, and there could not be a trial in this Court. But this is an action in common form. Referees were appointed under a rule of court and their report was accepted ; and this decision is said to be wrong. Though a statute was passed, many years since, to prevent appeals in cases like the one before us, yet the party aggrieved had relief upon a writ of error. This action may be tried here, if the order of the Court of Common Pleas was wrong, and judgment may be entered as in other cases; and it is an easier and less expensive course to proceed by filing exceptions, than by suing out a writ of error. The words of the statute are comprehensive enough to embrace this case, and no inconvenience will result from sustaining the exceptions.

Motion overruled.' 
      
      
        Gile v. Moore, ante, 386.
     
      
      
        Dean v. Dean, ante, 25, 26, n. (1) and n. (3).
     
      
       See Howe’s Pract. 454
     
      
       See Olney v. Brown, post, 572.
     