Browning v. McManus
This text of 1 Whart. 177 (Browning v. McManus) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The exceptions are such as might be proper in the .court below, op a motion to set aside the award; which is put, by the act of 1705, on the footing of a verdict; but they are not in place here. We are incompetent, for instance, to enquire whether the arbitrators were sworn, or the opposite party had notice; but these, being .extrinsic to the- record, were open to examination in the court below, by affidavit. The exception to the substitution has colour of foundation, but no more. The substituted arbitrator appears to have been appointed precisely as the others were. The minutes are unusually short and unsatisfactory; but in a court of general jurisdiction, every thing is to be presumed in favour of the regularity of,a proceeding. In the absence of contradiction by the record, then we are to presume that the defendant was present in person, or by counsel, and consented to the substitution.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
1 Whart. 177, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/browning-v-mcmanus-pa-1836.