Murrel v. Howard

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Murrel v. Howard

4 S.C.L. 62

DecidedApril 15, 1806

StatusPublished

This text of 4 S.C.L. 62 (Murrel v. Howard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Murrel v. Howard, 4 S.C.L. 62 (S.C. 1806).

Pincite

Opinion

Grimke, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court (all the judges present) 28th April. No improper motive had been imputed to the arbitrators in making the representation they did. It must be taken for granted that the mistake was made which they have stated ; and if so, it would be unjust to establish the award. Whether for such a cause as this it would be proper to set aside an award, alter it had been returned into court, and had been confirmed and made a judgment of the court, is not now the question to be determined ; but the question is, whether upon a rule to shew cause why an award delivered into couri should not receive the sanction ol the court, and be made a judgment thereof, and cause shewn as in the present case, such cause shewn ought not to be deemed sufficient to require a refusal to make the rule absolute, and to authorize an inquiry into the truth of the causes assigned. We think the judge who presided in the District Court did wrong in overruling the objection to the motion.to confirm the award, and therefore reverse his decision.

Motion granted.

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

Grimke, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court (all the judges present) 28th April. No improper motive had been imputed to the arbitrators in making the representation they did. It must be taken for granted that the mistake was made which they have stated ; and if so, it would be unjust to establish the award. Whether for such a cause as this it would be proper to set aside an award, alter it had been returned into court, and had been confirmed and made a judgment of the court, is not now the question to be determined ; but the question is, whether upon a rule to shew cause why an award delivered into couri should not receive the sanction ol the court, and be made a judgment thereof, and cause shewn as in the present case, such cause shewn ought not to be deemed sufficient to require a refusal to make the rule absolute, and to authorize an inquiry into the truth of the causes assigned. We think the judge who presided in the District Court did wrong in overruling the objection to the motion.to confirm the award, and therefore reverse his decision.

Motion granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 S.C.L. 62, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murrel-v-howard-sc-1806.