Calapooia Lumber Co. v. Rice

Oregon Supreme Court

Calapooia Lumber Co. v. Rice

112 P. 530, 58 Or. 303, 1911 Ore. LEXIS 54

DecidedJanuary 10, 1911

StatusPublished

This text of 112 P. 530 (Calapooia Lumber Co. v. Rice) 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

Calapooia Lumber Co. v. Rice, 112 P. 530, 58 Or. 303, 1911 Ore. LEXIS 54 (Or. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice McBride

delivered the opinion of the court.

Many reasons are urged by plaintiff for setting aside this award, which in the main seems to have been conducted in the informal manner common in such proceedings.

Without discussing all the objections urged against the validity of the award, we are of the opinion that the conveyance by Rice to Ina Finley operated as a revocation of the submission, and that the arbitrators were without power to act under the written agreement. Ina Finley was not bound by the written agreement to submit to arbitration, and Rice had voluntarily put it out of his power to perform his agreement to make a conveyance. Only the parties who sign the agreement of submission are bound by it. Practically this is an attempted arbitration between plaintiff on the one hand, and Rice and Finley, and Ina Finley, who is a stranger to the agreement, on the other. The agreement of submission was revoked by operation of law when Rice con[306]*306veyed the premises. Billings, Awards, p. 20; Smith v. Reeves, 5 Dowl. Pr. C. 513.

The decree of the circuit court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Mr. Justice McBride

delivered the opinion of the court.

Many reasons are urged by plaintiff for setting aside this award, which in the main seems to have been conducted in the informal manner common in such proceedings.

Without discussing all the objections urged against the validity of the award, we are of the opinion that the conveyance by Rice to Ina Finley operated as a revocation of the submission, and that the arbitrators were without power to act under the written agreement. Ina Finley was not bound by the written agreement to submit to arbitration, and Rice had voluntarily put it out of his power to perform his agreement to make a conveyance. Only the parties who sign the agreement of submission are bound by it. Practically this is an attempted arbitration between plaintiff on the one hand, and Rice and Finley, and Ina Finley, who is a stranger to the agreement, on the other. The agreement of submission was revoked by operation of law when Rice con[306]*306veyed the premises. Billings, Awards, p. 20; Smith v. Reeves, 5 Dowl. Pr. C. 513.

The decree of the circuit court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 P. 530, 58 Or. 303, 1911 Ore. LEXIS 54, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/calapooia-lumber-co-v-rice-or-1911.