Ligon v. Ford

Supreme Court of Virginia

Ligon v. Ford

5 Munf. 10, 5 Va. 10, 1816 Va. LEXIS 2

CourtSupreme Court of Virginia

DecidedJanuary 20, 1816

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 5 Munf. 10 (Ligon v. Ford) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ligon v. Ford, 5 Munf. 10, 5 Va. 10, 1816 Va. LEXIS 2 (Va. 1816).

Pincite

Opinion

The president

delivered the opinion of the court.

“ The court is of opinion, that the parties having by consent, “ submitted all matters, in difference between them in this suit, “ to the decision of the arbitrators in the proceedings mentioned, the principal of which matters was the amount of the [16]*16“ damages, which the appellee ought to recover from the áppellant; that submission precluded the appellant from contending, that the amount of those damages was conclusively set tied by the verdict rendered in the cause, and is a waiver of “ the objection, that greater damages are given by the award 5 “if that objection would otherwise have been available; according to the spirit of the decision of this court, in the case “of Brickhouse v. Hunter Banks, & Co. 4 H. & M. 363.”

“ The court is further of opinion, that, in trying the question “ submitted to them, comprising as well the fact complained of “ by the appellee, as the amount of damages thereby alleged to “ have been incurred by the appellant, the arbitrators ought “ to have received the evidence, stated in the third and fourth “ exceptions to have been offered, and rejected 5 and that the “judgment of the Superior Court is also erroneous, in having “ refused the appellant permission to shew, if he could, that “ such testimony was offered to, and rejected by, the said arbi-trators.”

“The judgment of the Superior Court is, therefore, revers- “ ed with costs, and the cause remanded, for the purpose of let- “ ting in the testimony last mentioned, (or testimony corres- “ ponding with that comprised in either of the said exceptions) “ if offered ; which testimony, if given, is to vacate the said “award; and the Superior Court is thereupon to award a new “trial, of the issue, before a jury; and, if no such testimony “ shall be given, that then, and in that case, the said award “ shall stand good, and judgment be rendered thereupon, in “ favour of the appellee.”

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

The president

delivered the opinion of the court.

“ The court is of opinion, that the parties having by consent, “ submitted all matters, in difference between them in this suit, “ to the decision of the arbitrators in the proceedings mentioned, the principal of which matters was the amount of the [16]*16“ damages, which the appellee ought to recover from the áppellant; that submission precluded the appellant from contending, that the amount of those damages was conclusively set tied by the verdict rendered in the cause, and is a waiver of “ the objection, that greater damages are given by the award 5 “if that objection would otherwise have been available; according to the spirit of the decision of this court, in the case “of Brickhouse v. Hunter Banks, & Co. 4 H. & M. 363.”

“ The court is further of opinion, that, in trying the question “ submitted to them, comprising as well the fact complained of “ by the appellee, as the amount of damages thereby alleged to “ have been incurred by the appellant, the arbitrators ought “ to have received the evidence, stated in the third and fourth “ exceptions to have been offered, and rejected 5 and that the “judgment of the Superior Court is also erroneous, in having “ refused the appellant permission to shew, if he could, that “ such testimony was offered to, and rejected by, the said arbi-trators.”

“The judgment of the Superior Court is, therefore, revers- “ ed with costs, and the cause remanded, for the purpose of let- “ ting in the testimony last mentioned, (or testimony corres- “ ponding with that comprised in either of the said exceptions) “ if offered ; which testimony, if given, is to vacate the said “award; and the Superior Court is thereupon to award a new “trial, of the issue, before a jury; and, if no such testimony “ shall be given, that then, and in that case, the said award “ shall stand good, and judgment be rendered thereupon, in “ favour of the appellee.”

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 Munf. 10, 5 Va. 10, 1816 Va. LEXIS 2, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ligon-v-ford-va-1816.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack