Dibble v. Camp

10 Abb. Pr. 92, 60 Barb. 150
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 15, 1871
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 10 Abb. Pr. 92 (Dibble v. Camp) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Dibble v. Camp, 10 Abb. Pr. 92, 60 Barb. 150 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1871).

Opinion

By the Court.—Ingraham, P. J.

We are all of the opinion that this judgment must be affirmed. If the plaintiff feels aggrieved at the award, his only remedy is to move the court at special term, either for an order modifying the award, or for an order vacating it; and upon the grounds and in the manner provided by the Revised Statutes. It is conceded by the [96]*96counsel for the appellant, that he has no statutory grounds for such a motion. He is therefore concluded by the judgment, which can only be reviewed by a writ of error; and he has no right to make a case and appeal thereon, for the purpose of reviewing the award made by the arbitrators on the merits.

The court will not in any case review an award made by arbitrators under the statute, except on the grounds specifically provided by the Revised Statutes, viz: fraud or undue means in procuring it, evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators, misconduct or excess of power on their part, imperfect award, miscalculation, mistake, or unauthorized award (2 Rev. Stat., 542, §§ 10, 11).

Geo. G. Barnard and Cardozo, JJ., concurred.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

Related

Wilbourn v. Hurt
139 Ala. 557 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1903)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
10 Abb. Pr. 92, 60 Barb. 150, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dibble-v-camp-nysupct-1871.