Prescott v. Fellows

41 N.H. 9
CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire
DecidedJune 15, 1860
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 41 N.H. 9 (Prescott v. Fellows) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Prescott v. Fellows, 41 N.H. 9 (N.H. 1860).

Opinion

Doe, J.

In an action upon an award, although the submission is not under a rule of court, a court of law may determine such questions touching the validity of the award as we are called upon to consider in this case. Boston Water Power Co. v. Gray, 6 Met. 162 ; Strong v. Strong, 9 Cush. 560 ; Barrows v. Capen, 11 Cush. 37 ; Shearer v. Handy, 22 Pick. 269 ; Mitchell v. Stanely, 16 East 58 ; Tudor v. Scovell, 20 N. H. 171; Chase v. Strain, 15 N. H. 535.

If a submission is general, without restriction as to the principles upon which the referees are to decide, they may decide upon legal or upon equitable grounds; but if they are limited by the submission to legal or to equitable considerations, they must make their award by the rule prescribed. Johnson v. Noble, 13 N. H. 286.

In Greenough v. Rolfe, 4 N. H. 357, where the submission required the referees to proceed “upon just and legal [11]*11grounds,” it was beld that they were to decide according to law. But we cannot presume that the parties in this case intended to submit tbeir rights to a mere legal decision. They seem to have supposed their controversy susceptible of adjudication on moral grounds, with a result different from that based on purely legal principles, and to have intended to require the referees to consider the law and the equities of the case, and, duly examining the subject in the two different modes, to make an award modified by either or both, as on the whole they should think most reasonable. The submission appears to require the referees to investigate the case in different methods and various lights, rather than finally to decide it according to any particular rule. They might, after determining the mere legal rights, have made such an award as, in equity and good conscience, should have seemed to them right. They evidently made a different award, because they supposed themselves bound to decide according to law. The award shows that they unwillingly held the defendant to his strictly legal obligations, and that there was a “ moral bearing of this matter” which would have led them to a different conclusion, had they considered themselves at liberty to regard it. By an erroneous construction of their authority, they were compelled to make a decision which they obviously deemed inequitable. Their action did not conform to the submission, and their award is void. White Mountains Railroad v. Beane, 39 N. H. 107.

Judgment for the defendant.

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

Related

Confederación de Organizadores v. Servidores Públicos Unidos
181 P.R. 299 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 2011)
Confederación De Organizadores v. Servidores Públicos Unidos P.R.
2011 TSPR 47 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
41 N.H. 9, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/prescott-v-fellows-nh-1860.