Mitchell v. Kelly

5 Va. 330, 1 Call 379, 1798 Va. LEXIS 28
CourtCourt of Appeals of Virginia
DecidedOctober 30, 1798
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 5 Va. 330 (Mitchell v. Kelly) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Mitchell v. Kelly, 5 Va. 330, 1 Call 379, 1798 Va. LEXIS 28 (Va. Ct. App. 1798).

Opinion

PENDLETON, President.

Delivered the resolution of the Court as follows:

This is an appeal from a judgment of the District Court, entered upon an award made pursuant to a submission by order of Court, in a suit depending; and at issue. The judgment was moved for at the term the award was returned; and, opposed by the defendant, for want of due notice; which being over-ruled, he filed his exception.

The counsel here, has added another objection, that the judgment was entered too soon, in the term when the award -was returned; since the act of Assembly of 1789, [c. 46, 13 Stat. Larg. 63,] relating to awards, allows the parties till the end of the next term, to make their objections.

[332]*332Without deciding, whether the act extends to the present case a submission made in a suit depending? We are of opinion, that admitting it does, the privilege of time might and was waived by the defendant, in this case; he having brought forward his objections at an earlier period.

As to the notice, the affidavit is equivocal: he says, that Kelly gave him no notice after the first of September; thereby implying, that he had given him notice before, and admitting that he might afterwards have had notice from the arbitrators. Which is the rather presumable, since he admits, that he received in that month Kelly’s account from one of them; no doubt for some purpose; probably, for an opportunity to make objections to it; and, these the arbitrators waited for, until the month of March following. In which time, he may have made them; and, they may have been considered by the arbitrators: Who report, that upon due notice, they had heard the parties; had considered their exhibits and evidence; and, had made the award between them. He does not say, that he has any objection to the account or to the justice of the award; but, is quibbling in terms about the notice.

J udgment affirmed.

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

Related

Smith's Adm'r v. Charlton's Adm'r
7 Gratt. 425 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1851)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
5 Va. 330, 1 Call 379, 1798 Va. LEXIS 28, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mitchell-v-kelly-vactapp-1798.