Coon v. Allen

30 N.E. 83, 156 Mass. 113, 1892 Mass. LEXIS 147
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided February 27, 1892·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Allen, J.

It is too late for a party to a submission to arbitration to revoke it after receiving notice that the award is made. Macarthur v. Campbell, 5 B. & Ad. 518. Musselbrook v. Dunkin, 9 Bing. 605. Brooke v. Mitchell, 6 M. & W. 473. Bus-.sell, Awards, (5th ed.) 236, 243, 244, 651. Knowlton v. Homer, 30 Maine, 552. The evidence was satisfactory to show that, at the time when the defendant gave notice of withdrawing from the submission, the arbitrators had fully performed their office and signed their award and delivered it to one of their own number as a completed document. One of them also testified that he was under the impression that he had informed the defendant that an award had been made; an impression which the other evidence renders quite probable. A further inference that the defendant was told in substance the result of the award, would be by no means unfounded. A ruling that upon all the evidence the plaintiff was not entitled to recover was rightly refused.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Coon v. Allen, 30 N.E. 83, 156 Mass. 113, 1892 Mass. LEXIS 147 (Mass. 1892).

30 N.E. 83 (Coon v. Allen) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ivins v. Ivins
72 A. 94 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1909)
Nashua & Lowell Railroad v. Boston & Lowell Railroad
31 N.E. 1060 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1892)