Reynolds v. Roebuck

Supreme Court of Alabama

Reynolds v. Roebuck

37 Ala. 408

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedJanuary 15, 1861

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 37 Ala. 408 (Reynolds v. Roebuck) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Reynolds v. Roebuck, 37 Ala. 408 (Ala. 1861).

Pincite

Opinion

R.W. WALKER, J.

If the bill .of sale found in the record was the only evidence before the arbitrators, in support of the defendant’s claim to the -immediate possession of the slaves, it may be difficult to understand how it was that they awarded in Ms favor on that point. But the evidence before the arbitrators is not set out; and it does not appear that any effort was made on the trial to impeach the award for fraud or corruption on their part. Under these circumstances, there was no error in the charges otf the court. For it is certainly the law, that parties who, after the making of an award, ratify and fully execute it, are bound by it, and are estopped from assarting that it was not authorized by the submission. — Williams v. Walliams, 11 Sm. & M. 393 ; Culver v. Ashley, 19 Pick. 300 ; Tyler v. Stephens, 7 Geo. 278; Kunard v. Harris, 2 B. Cr. 789.

.Judgment affirmed.

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

R.W. WALKER, J.

If the bill .of sale found in the record was the only evidence before the arbitrators, in support of the defendant’s claim to the -immediate possession of the slaves, it may be difficult to understand how it was that they awarded in Ms favor on that point. But the evidence before the arbitrators is not set out; and it does not appear that any effort was made on the trial to impeach the award for fraud or corruption on their part. Under these circumstances, there was no error in the charges otf the court. For it is certainly the law, that parties who, after the making of an award, ratify and fully execute it, are bound by it, and are estopped from assarting that it was not authorized by the submission. — Williams v. Walliams, 11 Sm. & M. 393 ; Culver v. Ashley, 19 Pick. 300 ; Tyler v. Stephens, 7 Geo. 278; Kunard v. Harris, 2 B. Cr. 789.

.Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 Ala. 408, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reynolds-v-roebuck-ala-1861.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack