Corbitt v. Nealy

Supreme Court of Iowa

Corbitt v. Nealy

29 Iowa 445

DecidedJune 15, 1870

StatusPublished

This text of 29 Iowa 445 (Corbitt v. Nealy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Corbitt v. Nealy, 29 Iowa 445 (iowa 1870).

Pincite

Opinion

Wright, J.

—The only point made here is, that the arbitrators did not proceed to hear the case within the time prescribed by statute ; that they, hence, had no jurisdiction or power to determine' the issues, and that the judgment based upon the return is therefore erroneous. Upon more than one ground, in view of the facts in this case, this position is not tenable. The statute relied upon is, that the order of reference shall direct when the referees shall proceed to a hearing, and, in the absence of such direction, they shall do so on the morning of the tenth day after the day on which was made the order of reference. Rev. \ 3103. As by the agreement of parties, and the order, the referees were directed to fix the time, it is not a ease of “absence of direction” but it is the same, in legal contemplation, as though a day had been fixed by the court before or beyond the ten days. And this is especially so when the parties appeared after notice, without objection, and were fully heard before the referees. McDaniels v. Van Fosen, 11 Iowa, 195; Thompson v. Blanchard, 2 id. 44; McKnight v. McCulloch, 21 id. 111; Higgins v. Kennedy, 20 id. 474.

Affirmed.

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

Wright, J.

—The only point made here is, that the arbitrators did not proceed to hear the case within the time prescribed by statute ; that they, hence, had no jurisdiction or power to determine' the issues, and that the judgment based upon the return is therefore erroneous. Upon more than one ground, in view of the facts in this case, this position is not tenable. The statute relied upon is, that the order of reference shall direct when the referees shall proceed to a hearing, and, in the absence of such direction, they shall do so on the morning of the tenth day after the day on which was made the order of reference. Rev. \ 3103. As by the agreement of parties, and the order, the referees were directed to fix the time, it is not a ease of “absence of direction” but it is the same, in legal contemplation, as though a day had been fixed by the court before or beyond the ten days. And this is especially so when the parties appeared after notice, without objection, and were fully heard before the referees. McDaniels v. Van Fosen, 11 Iowa, 195; Thompson v. Blanchard, 2 id. 44; McKnight v. McCulloch, 21 id. 111; Higgins v. Kennedy, 20 id. 474.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 Iowa 445, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/corbitt-v-nealy-iowa-1870.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack