Bostick v. White

Oregon Supreme Court

Bostick v. White

402 P.2d 528, 240 Or. 544, 1965 Ore. LEXIS 533

DecidedJune 3, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 402 P.2d 528 (Bostick v. White) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Oregon Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bostick v. White, 402 P.2d 528, 240 Or. 544, 1965 Ore. LEXIS 533 (Or. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from a judgment which affirmed an arbitration award adversely to defendant. The arbitration had been required by the terms of a contract between the parties. Performance of the contract had been the subject matter of the dispute. The procedure provided by ORS 33.210 to 33.340 was followed.

Defendant, in challenge to the award, claimed that the arbitrators “* * * so imperfectly executed [their powers] that a mutual, final and definite award upon the subject-matter submitted was not made.” ORS 33.320 (4). The real argument is that arbitration was not a satisfactory way to solve this dispute. Defendant would convert the award into a lawsuit and retry the whole case. This, we have already said, the court will not do. Harrell v. Dove Mfg. Co., 234 Or 321, at page 326, 381 P2d 710. That decision is a complete answer to this appeal.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from a judgment which affirmed an arbitration award adversely to defendant. The arbitration had been required by the terms of a contract between the parties. Performance of the contract had been the subject matter of the dispute. The procedure provided by ORS 33.210 to 33.340 was followed.

Defendant, in challenge to the award, claimed that the arbitrators “* * * so imperfectly executed [their powers] that a mutual, final and definite award upon the subject-matter submitted was not made.” ORS 33.320 (4). The real argument is that arbitration was not a satisfactory way to solve this dispute. Defendant would convert the award into a lawsuit and retry the whole case. This, we have already said, the court will not do. Harrell v. Dove Mfg. Co., 234 Or 321, at page 326, 381 P2d 710. That decision is a complete answer to this appeal.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

402 P.2d 528, 240 Or. 544, 1965 Ore. LEXIS 533, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bostick-v-white-or-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack