Tri-State Transportation Co. v. Stearns Bros.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Tri-State Transportation Co. v. Stearns Bros.

143 S.E. 473, 195 N.C. 720, 1928 N.C. LEXIS 196

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedJune 6, 1928

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 143 S.E. 473 (Tri-State Transportation Co. v. Stearns Bros.) 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

Tri-State Transportation Co. v. Stearns Bros., 143 S.E. 473, 195 N.C. 720, 1928 N.C. LEXIS 196 (N.C. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

It was agreed that the report of the arbitrators should be the final judgment of the court and binding on all parties to the litigation. The arbitrators awarded the plaintiff a given sum with interest “together with the costs of this action.” That they thereby intended to include in their award as a part of the costs of the action, whatever allowances should be made to the arbitrators and the fees of the stenographer, is a fairly permissible deduction from the language used. Undoubtedly, the agreement to arbitrate is broad enough to cover such allowances and fees, and it was the intention of the parties that the award of the arbitrators should settle all matters involved. This, we think, the award does.

The ease of Griffin v. Hadley, 53 N. C., 82, strongly relied upon by the defendants, is distinguishable in that there the agreement to arbitrate was more restricted than here. Indeed, in the instant case, the award is to be “the final judgment of the court.” This, it cannot be unless it fully determines the controversy. The parties, as well as the arbitrators, intended that it should operate as a complete settlement of “all the matters involved.”

Let the cause be remanded, to the end that judgment may be entered to this effect.

Error.

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

Stacy, C. J.

It was agreed that the report of the arbitrators should be the final judgment of the court and binding on all parties to the litigation. The arbitrators awarded the plaintiff a given sum with interest “together with the costs of this action.” That they thereby intended to include in their award as a part of the costs of the action, whatever allowances should be made to the arbitrators and the fees of the stenographer, is a fairly permissible deduction from the language used. Undoubtedly, the agreement to arbitrate is broad enough to cover such allowances and fees, and it was the intention of the parties that the award of the arbitrators should settle all matters involved. This, we think, the award does.

The ease of Griffin v. Hadley, 53 N. C., 82, strongly relied upon by the defendants, is distinguishable in that there the agreement to arbitrate was more restricted than here. Indeed, in the instant case, the award is to be “the final judgment of the court.” This, it cannot be unless it fully determines the controversy. The parties, as well as the arbitrators, intended that it should operate as a complete settlement of “all the matters involved.”

Let the cause be remanded, to the end that judgment may be entered to this effect.

Error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

143 S.E. 473, 195 N.C. 720, 1928 N.C. LEXIS 196, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tri-state-transportation-co-v-stearns-bros-nc-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack