Donaldson v. Buhlman

113 N.W. 638, 134 Wis. 117, 1908 Wisc. LEXIS 4
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 8, 1908
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 113 N.W. 638 (Donaldson v. Buhlman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wisconsin Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Donaldson v. Buhlman, 113 N.W. 638, 134 Wis. 117, 1908 Wisc. LEXIS 4 (Wis. 1908).

Opinions

The following opinion was filed November 5, 1907:

WmsLow, J.

The judgment entered is manifestly right. A common-law award of arbitrators is not to be set aside for mere errors of judgment upon questions of fact or law submitted, but it is subject to impeachment for fraud or misconduct amounting to fraud, or upon clear evidence of mistake when such mistake is not simply a wrong conclusion [120]*120upon the facts or law submitted, but au unconscious failure to know or apprehend some material fact or right in the light of which their judgment should be exercised. Consolidated W. P. Co. v. Nash, 109 Wis. 490, 85 N. W. 485, and cases cited. Passing all questions of fraud or misconduct, it is unquestionable that the arbitrators committed such a mistake here. The question whether the plaintiffs’ rights to cut saw logs on the island had terminated or should be terminated at once was not submitted to them. The agreement of arbitration very clearly indicates that both parties understood that the plaintiffs were still entitled to some reasonable time within which to exercise their right of removal of saw logs and that they simply desired the arbitrators to set the limits of such time. The arbitrators entirely mistook their duty. They conceived that they had power to cut off entirely the plaintiffs’ rights to cut timber and proceeded to do so. Acquitting them of all intentional fraud or bad faith, this was a total misconception of the question submitted to them, and hence a mistake within the definition, above given, which calls for annulment of their award.

By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Joint School District No. 10 v. Jefferson Education Ass'n
253 N.W.2d 536 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1977)
Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission v. Teamsters Local No. 563
250 N.W.2d 696 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1977)
Scherrer Construction Co. v. Burlington Memorial Hospital
221 N.W.2d 855 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1974)
Garstka v. Russo
154 N.W.2d 286 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1967)
Reith v. Wynhoff
137 N.W.2d 33 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1965)
400 East 58th Street Corp. v. Weiner
179 Misc. 213 (New York Supreme Court, 1942)
Decker v. Ladish-Stoppenback Co.
234 N.W. 355 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1931)
Dechant v. Globe & Rutgers Fire Insurance
217 N.W. 322 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1928)
Boomer Coal & Coke Co. v. Osenton
133 S.E. 381 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1926)
Rottman v. Toft
204 N.W. 585 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1925)
Clark v. Wisconsin-Minnesota Light & Power Co.
202 N.W. 678 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1925)
Monidah Trust v. Arctic Const. Co.
264 F. 303 (Ninth Circuit, 1920)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
113 N.W. 638, 134 Wis. 117, 1908 Wisc. LEXIS 4, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/donaldson-v-buhlman-wis-1908.