Luther v. Medbury

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Luther v. Medbury

26 A. 37, 18 R.I. 141, 1893 R.I. LEXIS 7

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedJanuary 14, 1893

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 26 A. 37 (Luther v. Medbury) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Luther v. Medbury, 26 A. 37, 18 R.I. 141, 1893 R.I. LEXIS 7 (R.I. 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

Matteson, C. J.

This is an action of debt on an award. The case was heard by the Court, jury trial being waived.

The agreement of submission named two arbitrators and provided that in case they were unable to agree they should choose a third and the decision of any two of these should, be binding upon the parties. The two arbitrators named were unable to agree upon an award, but instead of choosing a third arbitrator, not wishing to be put to the trouble of hearing the case the second time, entered into an agreement by which each was to mark the sum he thought *142 the plaintiff ought to recover and that the sums so. marked should, he added and the amount divided by two and that the sum thus ascertained should be returnM as their award. Accordingly, one of them marked $500 and the other $1000, which sums were then added and the amount divided by two. The result, thus obtained, $750, was returned as their award, and is the award in suit.

Charles H. Page & Franklin P. Oioen, for plaintiff. Edward C. Dubois, for defendant.

The arbitrator who marked $500 testifies that he would have adhered to that amount, that being in his judgment the sum properly recoverable by the plaintiff, had it not been for the agreement, by which he felt himself bound.

The method of reaching a conclusion adopted by the arbitrators has been held sufficient to vitiate a verdict, since it precludes the verdict from representing the judgment of the jury. Harvey v. Rickett, 15 Johns. Rep. 87; Forbes v. Howard, 4 R. I. 364. The reason applies with equal force to an award. The parties to a submission are entitled under it to the judgment of the arbitrators and if the method pursued by them precludes the exercise of their judgment the parties do not get that for which they have stipulated. Morse on Arbitration and Award, 165; Brown v. Bellows, 4 Pick. 179.

Moreover, in the present case, the submission provided that in case the arbitrators named in it were finable to agree they should choose a third. They were, therefore, not at liberty to adopt any other mode of procedure.

For these reasons we are - of the 'opinion that the award must be set aside and judgment rendered for the defendant for his costs.

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

Matteson, C. J.

This is an action of debt on an award. The case was heard by the Court, jury trial being waived.

The agreement of submission named two arbitrators and provided that in case they were unable to agree they should choose a third and the decision of any two of these should, be binding upon the parties. The two arbitrators named were unable to agree upon an award, but instead of choosing a third arbitrator, not wishing to be put to the trouble of hearing the case the second time, entered into an agreement by which each was to mark the sum he thought *142 the plaintiff ought to recover and that the sums so. marked should, he added and the amount divided by two and that the sum thus ascertained should be returnM as their award. Accordingly, one of them marked $500 and the other $1000, which sums were then added and the amount divided by two. The result, thus obtained, $750, was returned as their award, and is the award in suit.

Charles H. Page & Franklin P. Oioen, for plaintiff. Edward C. Dubois, for defendant.

The arbitrator who marked $500 testifies that he would have adhered to that amount, that being in his judgment the sum properly recoverable by the plaintiff, had it not been for the agreement, by which he felt himself bound.

The method of reaching a conclusion adopted by the arbitrators has been held sufficient to vitiate a verdict, since it precludes the verdict from representing the judgment of the jury. Harvey v. Rickett, 15 Johns. Rep. 87; Forbes v. Howard, 4 R. I. 364. The reason applies with equal force to an award. The parties to a submission are entitled under it to the judgment of the arbitrators and if the method pursued by them precludes the exercise of their judgment the parties do not get that for which they have stipulated. Morse on Arbitration and Award, 165; Brown v. Bellows, 4 Pick. 179.

Moreover, in the present case, the submission provided that in case the arbitrators named in it were finable to agree they should choose a third. They were, therefore, not at liberty to adopt any other mode of procedure.

For these reasons we are - of the 'opinion that the award must be set aside and judgment rendered for the defendant for his costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A. 37, 18 R.I. 141, 1893 R.I. LEXIS 7, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/luther-v-medbury-ri-1893.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack