Goodell v. Raymond

Supreme Court of Vermont

Goodell v. Raymond

27 Vt. 241

DecidedJanuary 15, 1855

StatusPublished

This text of 27 Vt. 241 (Goodell v. Raymond) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Vermont primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Goodell v. Raymond, 27 Vt. 241 (Vt. 1855).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Bennett, J.

This is a case where a parol award would be sufficient, although the submission was in writing. Marsh v. Packer, 20 Vt. 198.

But we see no objection to the correction of the mistake by the arbitrator. When arbitrators have once made and published their award, their powers are so far spent that they cannot revive them, so as to malee any amendments of the award, which could by possibility include the essential merits of the case, or in any way affect them.

The mistake corrected was purely a clerical omission of the word “dollars,” and its connection did not, and could not involve a reconsideration of the merits. . It is not even like a correction of an error [243]*243in calculation, which, might involve a consideration of the merits of the controversy. The case of Newman v. Labeaume, 9 Missouri, 30, cited in Caldwell on Arbitration, p. 293, is much like the present in principle. The statute required an award to be attested, and it was held, that though it had been delivered without the attestation, yet the arbitrators might amend it in that particular, and by the amendment, it was made effective as an award.

The defendant cannot well object to the arbitrator’s striking out the three dollars for his fees. If in so doing the arbitrator transcended his authority, the effect would be to leave the award three dollars larger than the judgment of the county court.

Judgment affirmed.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Bennett, J.

This is a case where a parol award would be sufficient, although the submission was in writing. Marsh v. Packer, 20 Vt. 198.

But we see no objection to the correction of the mistake by the arbitrator. When arbitrators have once made and published their award, their powers are so far spent that they cannot revive them, so as to malee any amendments of the award, which could by possibility include the essential merits of the case, or in any way affect them.

The mistake corrected was purely a clerical omission of the word “dollars,” and its connection did not, and could not involve a reconsideration of the merits. . It is not even like a correction of an error [243]*243in calculation, which, might involve a consideration of the merits of the controversy. The case of Newman v. Labeaume, 9 Missouri, 30, cited in Caldwell on Arbitration, p. 293, is much like the present in principle. The statute required an award to be attested, and it was held, that though it had been delivered without the attestation, yet the arbitrators might amend it in that particular, and by the amendment, it was made effective as an award.

The defendant cannot well object to the arbitrator’s striking out the three dollars for his fees. If in so doing the arbitrator transcended his authority, the effect would be to leave the award three dollars larger than the judgment of the county court.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 Vt. 241, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goodell-v-raymond-vt-1855.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack