Phelps v. Wayne Circuit Judge

Michigan Supreme Court

Phelps v. Wayne Circuit Judge

75 N.W. 94, 117 Mich. 35

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedMay 10, 1898

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 75 N.W. 94 (Phelps v. Wayne Circuit Judge) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Phelps v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 75 N.W. 94, 117 Mich. 35 (Mich. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

Grant, C. J.

The relator and one Cyrus Johnston entered into an agreement of arbitration, under chapter 292, 2 How. Stat. Three arbitrators were chosen. The proceedings were regular, and an award was duly and legally made. Relator moved for a confirmation. Johns[36]*36ton moved to vacate the award, upon the ground that the arbitrators exceeded their powers. Upon the hearing of the two motions, the former was denied, and the letter granted. The grounds upon which such award may be vacated are defined in the statute (2 How. Stat. § 8482). Johnston claimed before the arbitrators that he should be allowed an item of $500. . This was contested by the relator. The testimony was conflicting, and the arbitrators decided in his favor. The circuit judge reviewed this evidence, and reversed the decision of the arbitrators.

The vacation of the award involved an examination into the testimony 'iipon which the arbitrators based it. Courts do not possess this power, under the statute. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Hughes, 28 Mich. 186. The circuit judge was in error in holding that it was in his power to vacate the award if, in his opinion, the ends of justice required it. The award is conclusive, and the court can only refuse to enter judgment confirming it for one of the reasons specified in the statute. Neither of these reasons existed. The circuit judge, and not the arbitrators, exceeded his powers. He should have confirmed the award.

The writ will issue as prayed.

The other Justices concurred.

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

Grant, C. J.

The relator and one Cyrus Johnston entered into an agreement of arbitration, under chapter 292, 2 How. Stat. Three arbitrators were chosen. The proceedings were regular, and an award was duly and legally made. Relator moved for a confirmation. Johns[36]*36ton moved to vacate the award, upon the ground that the arbitrators exceeded their powers. Upon the hearing of the two motions, the former was denied, and the letter granted. The grounds upon which such award may be vacated are defined in the statute (2 How. Stat. § 8482). Johnston claimed before the arbitrators that he should be allowed an item of $500. . This was contested by the relator. The testimony was conflicting, and the arbitrators decided in his favor. The circuit judge reviewed this evidence, and reversed the decision of the arbitrators.

The vacation of the award involved an examination into the testimony 'iipon which the arbitrators based it. Courts do not possess this power, under the statute. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Hughes, 28 Mich. 186. The circuit judge was in error in holding that it was in his power to vacate the award if, in his opinion, the ends of justice required it. The award is conclusive, and the court can only refuse to enter judgment confirming it for one of the reasons specified in the statute. Neither of these reasons existed. The circuit judge, and not the arbitrators, exceeded his powers. He should have confirmed the award.

The writ will issue as prayed.

The other Justices concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

75 N.W. 94, 117 Mich. 35, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/phelps-v-wayne-circuit-judge-mich-1898.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack