Pearl v. Harris

121 Mass. 390, 1876 Mass. LEXIS 398
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedDecember 9, 1876
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 121 Mass. 390 (Pearl v. Harris) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Pearl v. Harris, 121 Mass. 390, 1876 Mass. LEXIS 398 (Mass. 1876).

Opinion

Morton, J.

The defendants’ appeal from the order of the court appointing a master can only be sustained upon the ground that the agreement in the articles of copartnership, to refer all disputed matters to arbitrators, ousts this court of jurisdiction. But it is well'settled that an agreement to submit to arbitration will not be held valid, either in law or equity, when its effect is to oust the court of jurisdiction. Wood v. Humphrey, 114 Mass. 185. Tobey v. County of Bristol, 3 Story, 800.

The defendants insist that a court of equity ought not, in its discretion, to entertain the case, because the plaintiffs in their bill do not allege a refusal to refer on the part of the defendants, and the defendants in their answer deny any refusal, and allege that they are willing to refer. It was not necessary for the plaintiffs to allege that the defendants have refused to refer. By bringing their bill they have elected to resort to the jurisdiction of this court, and the defendants cannot defeat that jurisdiction by alleging that they are and have ever been willing to refer under the articles of copartnership. We need not decide whether the court might, in its discretion, decline to proceed in the case, if it appeared that the plaintiffs unreasonably refused to submit disputed matters to arbitration, because it does not appear in this case that there was such unreasonable refusal on the part of the plaintiffs. Order affirmed.

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

Related

Blessing v. Ocean Accident & Guarantee Corp.
54 P.2d 300 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1936)
Patton v. Babson's Statistical Organization, Inc.
156 N.E. 534 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1927)
First Ecclesiastical Society v. Besse
119 A. 903 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1923)
Rosenblum v. Springfield Produce Brokerage Co.
243 Mass. 111 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1922)
Griffith v. Cole Bros.
183 Iowa 415 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1917)
Hunter v. Colfax Consolidated Coal Co.
175 Iowa 245 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1915)
Bauer v. International Waste Co.
87 N.E. 637 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1909)
Hind v. Low
14 Haw. 438 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1902)
Hicks v. Magoun
38 A.D. 573 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1899)
Buel v. Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern Railway Co.
24 Misc. 646 (New York Supreme Court, 1898)
Miles v. Schmidt
47 N.E. 115 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1897)
Dugan v. Thomas
9 A. 354 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1887)
White v. Middlesex Railroad
135 Mass. 216 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1883)
Savage v. Glenn
10 Or. 440 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1882)
Vass v. Wales
129 Mass. 38 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1880)
Noyes v. Marsh
123 Mass. 286 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1877)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
121 Mass. 390, 1876 Mass. LEXIS 398, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pearl-v-harris-mass-1876.