Rand, Johnson & Co. v. Peel

Mississippi Supreme Court

Rand, Johnson & Co. v. Peel

74 Miss. 305

Mississippi Supreme Court·Decided October 15, 1896·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Whitfield, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The motion to vacate the award should have been sustained. [307]*3072 Am. & Eng. Enc. L. (2d ed.), 646, 647, and authorities cited. This being the reference of an action at law, the award falling, the submission falls with it. Id., 813, subd. 19, and note 2. The award in such case is to be dealt with as to procedure here, and have the “ same effect as the final judgment of the court into which the award was returned. ’ ’

The judgment is reversed, the award set aside, cmd cause remanded.

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

Whitfield, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The motion to vacate the award should have been sustained. [307]*3072 Am. & Eng. Enc. L. (2d ed.), 646, 647, and authorities cited. This being the reference of an action at law, the award falling, the submission falls with it. Id., 813, subd. 19, and note 2. The award in such case is to be dealt with as to procedure here, and have the “ same effect as the final judgment of the court into which the award was returned. ’ ’

The judgment is reversed, the award set aside, cmd cause remanded.

Rand, Johnson & Co. v. Peel, 74 Miss. 305 (Mich. 1896).

Pincite

74 Miss. 305 (Rand, Johnson & Co. v. Peel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related