Smith v. . Kron

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Smith v. . Kron

13 S.E. 839, 109 N.C. 103

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedSeptember 5, 1891

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 13 S.E. 839 (Smith v. . Kron) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Smith v. . Kron, 13 S.E. 839, 109 N.C. 103 (N.C. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Avery, J.

after stating the case, proceeded: Arbitrators are not bound, like referees, under the statute (The Code, § 2422), to find the facts or state separately their conclusions of law and fact;, but if they do attempt to state the law arising on the facts found by them, and “miss it,” the error may be reviewed on exceptions, and the award set aside. Allison v. Bryson, 65 N. C., 44; Farmer v. Pickens, 83 N. C., 549.

They are a law to themselves, are not bound to decide correctly, and, unless they gratuitously incorporate in their *105 award erroneous views of the law as reasons for the conclusions reached, their action in the absence of fraud is not subject to review. Robbins v. Killebrew, 95 N. C., 19; Miller v. Bryan, 86 N. C., 167.

But, where they voluntarily extend to the parties litigant, as in our case, the opportunity to have their conclusions of law passed upon by the Court, the practice is analagous to that adopted in references by consent. If objection is not taken by exception, pointing out the error complained of, before the rendition of judgment, an appellant has no more right to assign their mistakes of law as error in the Court below, or in this Court, by virtue of the simple announcement, when the judgment is filed, that he appeals from it, than he would have had to except to a report of a referee after its confirmation. Keener v. Goodson, 89 N. C., 276; Reizenstein v. Hahn, 107 N. C , 156.

There is no error, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Avery, J.

after stating the case, proceeded: Arbitrators are not bound, like referees, under the statute (The Code, § 2422), to find the facts or state separately their conclusions of law and fact;, but if they do attempt to state the law arising on the facts found by them, and “miss it,” the error may be reviewed on exceptions, and the award set aside. Allison v. Bryson, 65 N. C., 44; Farmer v. Pickens, 83 N. C., 549.

They are a law to themselves, are not bound to decide correctly, and, unless they gratuitously incorporate in their *105 award erroneous views of the law as reasons for the conclusions reached, their action in the absence of fraud is not subject to review. Robbins v. Killebrew, 95 N. C., 19; Miller v. Bryan, 86 N. C., 167.

But, where they voluntarily extend to the parties litigant, as in our case, the opportunity to have their conclusions of law passed upon by the Court, the practice is analagous to that adopted in references by consent. If objection is not taken by exception, pointing out the error complained of, before the rendition of judgment, an appellant has no more right to assign their mistakes of law as error in the Court below, or in this Court, by virtue of the simple announcement, when the judgment is filed, that he appeals from it, than he would have had to except to a report of a referee after its confirmation. Keener v. Goodson, 89 N. C., 276; Reizenstein v. Hahn, 107 N. C , 156.

There is no error, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 S.E. 839, 109 N.C. 103, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-kron-nc-1891.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack