In re Peterson

Supreme Court of the United States · 1920 · Civil Procedure

253 U.S. 300 (1920)

Updated July 29, 2026

Civil ProcedureJury TrialInherent Powers of CourtAuditorsCostsSeventh Amendmenttrial by juryauditor

Facts

Peterson brought an action at law in federal district court to recover an alleged balance due for coal sold and delivered, supported by a long schedule of items. The defendant substantially admitted the listed items but claimed the account was incomplete, asserted additional deliveries, payments, deductions, and a counterclaim, and filed schedules containing more than two hundred items of defense. Over Peterson's objection, the district judge appointed an auditor to hear witnesses, examine accounts, classify agreed and disputed items, and state opinions on disputed deductions and net amounts due on invoices, while expressly reserving final factual determination to the jury. The order also provided that the auditor's and stenographer's expenses would be paid by either or both parties as the trial judge determined.

Issue

May a federal district court, without the parties' consent, appoint an auditor in an action at law to conduct a preliminary hearing, simplify issues, and make tentative findings and opinions for use at trial without violating the Seventh Amendment? If so, may the court tax the auditor's expenses as costs and impose those costs in its discretion on either party, including the prevailing party?

Rule

The Seventh Amendment preserves the right to jury trial but does not freeze old forms of procedure or evidence. A federal district court has inherent power, absent contrary legislation, to appoint an auditor in an action at law to define and simplify issues and make tentative findings that may be admitted as prima facie evidence, provided the jury's ultimate determination of factual issues is not obstructed or interfered with and the parties remain free to present and challenge evidence at trial. Auditor and stenographer expenses ordered by the court may be taxable as costs, but in actions at law the prevailing party is ordinarily entitled as of right to the entire taxable costs, so the court may not apportion those costs against the prevailing party in its discretion absent statutory authority or established exception.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In federal district court in Chicago, Nora Patel sues Lakefront Grain Logistics for unpaid amounts on a series of commodity shipments. The pleadings and attached schedules reveal hundreds of invoice entries, credits, disputed deductions, and offsetting claims over ten months of transactions. Over Nora's objection, the judge appoints an auditor to hear witnesses, review records, separate agreed items from disputed ones, and file a report to simplify the issues for a jury, while reserving all final factfinding to the jury.

Was the appointment most likely within the district court's power?

Explanation. The majority held that, absent contrary legislation, a federal district court has inherent power to appoint an auditor in an action at law when complicated accounts or voluminous evidence make such aid useful. The key limits are that the auditor's role be preliminary and tentative and that the jury remain the ultimate factfinder.