Newland v. Douglass

New York Supreme Court

Newland v. Douglass

2 Johns. 63

DecidedNovember 15, 1806

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Johns. 63 (Newland v. Douglass) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Newland v. Douglass, 2 Johns. 63 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1806).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The evidence was inadmissible, and a suit at law will not lie, to re-examine the merits of an award. A court of chancery may correct a palpable mistake.or miscalculation, made by the arbitrators, or relieve against their partiality or corruption. (3 Atk. 644.) But there is no such remedy at law, in a case of submission, not within the statute. (2 Wils. 148. 1 Salk. 73.)

Judgment for the defendant.

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

Per Curiam.

The evidence was inadmissible, and a suit at law will not lie, to re-examine the merits of an award. A court of chancery may correct a palpable mistake.or miscalculation, made by the arbitrators, or relieve against their partiality or corruption. (3 Atk. 644.) But there is no such remedy at law, in a case of submission, not within the statute. (2 Wils. 148. 1 Salk. 73.)

Judgment for the defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Johns. 63, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newland-v-douglass-nysupct-1806.