Rand, Johnson & Co. v. Peel

Mississippi Supreme Court

Rand, Johnson & Co. v. Peel

74 Miss. 305

CourtMississippi Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 15, 1896

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 74 Miss. 305 (Rand, Johnson & Co. v. Peel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mississippi Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 Miss. 305, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rand-johnson-co-v-peel-miss-1896.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack