Masters v. . Gardner

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Masters v. . Gardner

50 N.C. 298

DecidedJune 5, 1858

StatusPublished

This text of 50 N.C. 298 (Masters v. . Gardner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Masters v. . Gardner, 50 N.C. 298 (N.C. 1858).

Pincite

Opinion

Pearson, J.

"We concur with 1ns Honor, that whether the two mules were the private property of Samuel Masters or belonged to the copartnership, was a question embraced within the terms of the submission, and the parties were concluded, in respect thereto, by the award. It would seem to be a matter of course that when arbitrators are chosen to settle a copartnership, it is for them to say what does or does not constitute a part of the copartnership effects. Unless they have authority to settle this question, it would be impossible to make a settlement. Brown v. Brown, J Jones’ Rep. 126, is decisive of this point.

Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.

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

Pearson, J.

"We concur with 1ns Honor, that whether the two mules were the private property of Samuel Masters or belonged to the copartnership, was a question embraced within the terms of the submission, and the parties were concluded, in respect thereto, by the award. It would seem to be a matter of course that when arbitrators are chosen to settle a copartnership, it is for them to say what does or does not constitute a part of the copartnership effects. Unless they have authority to settle this question, it would be impossible to make a settlement. Brown v. Brown, J Jones’ Rep. 126, is decisive of this point.

Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 N.C. 298, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/masters-v-gardner-nc-1858.