Dickerson v. Rorke

30 Pa. 390
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided July 1, 1858·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Lowrie, C. J.

— The propositions laid down in the case of Robinson v. Bickley rule this case against the plaintiff in error, and we only repeat them with more specific reference to this case when we say:—

1. When an award is made under a submission, the presumption of law is, that nothing is included in the award ^as not submitted, and that all that was submitted is included; but the contrary may be shown.

2. Where a submission is in writing, it cannot. be directly revoked except by a written instrument given to the arbitrators, or a majority of them.

3. If one of the arbitrators, during the investigation, refuses to serve because one of the parties had written him a letter, the other two may go on without him, if a majority have power to award.

4. When an award has been made by a competent number, the presumption is that the whole case had been first fully considered.

. Considering the case on these principles, we see no evidence affecting the regularity and validity of the award. The declaration is in substantial accordance with the submission and award.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Dickerson v. Rorke, 30 Pa. 390 (Pa. 1858).

30 Pa. 390 (Dickerson v. Rorke) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In re Arbitration Award between Lower Yoder Township Police & Lower Yoder Township
654 A.2d 651 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1995)
Carr v. Joyce
74 Pa. D. & C.2d 288 (Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, 1975)
Pittsburgh Union Stock Yards Co. v. Pittsburgh Joint Stock Co.
163 A. 668 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1932)
Klair v. Philadelphia, Baltimore & Washington Railroad
78 A. 1085 (Superior Court of Delaware, 1910)
Horne v. Welsh
35 Pa. Super. 569 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1908)