Wheeler v. Van Houten

12 Johns. 311
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedAugust 15, 1815
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 12 Johns. 311 (Wheeler v. Van Houten) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Wheeler v. Van Houten, 12 Johns. 311 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1815).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In Reeve v. Farmer, (4 Term Rep. 146.) it was ¡held, that on a submission to arbitration “ of all matters in differ-ence,” the award was conclusive on the parties, as to all causes of action subsisting between them previously to the submission; but that where it could be shown, that the subject of the action was not a matter in difference at the time of the submission, nor was referred by the parties to the arbitrators, the award would be no bar. The case of Golightly v. Jellico, in a note to the case cited, turns on the same principle.

These decisions do not bear out the plaintiff in maintaining this suit, for here the submission extended to. all the demands -which either party had against the other; whatever constituted a demand, on the one side or the other, was submitted; and if submitted, the cases cited show that the award must be final.

It would be a very dangerous precedent to allow a party, on a submission so general, intended to settle every thing between the parties, to lie by, and submit only part of his demands,, and then institute a suit for the part not brought before the arbitrators. The object of the submission was, to avoid litigation; and neither party is at liberty to withhold a demand from the cognizance of the arbitrators, on such a submission, and then to sue for it.

It is true, if a person sues upon several and distinct causes of action,, and submits only a part of them to the jury, he is not precluded from suing again for such distinct cause of action as was not passed upon. In that case, he was not bound, originally, to unite the different causes of action, and, therefore, shall not be barred; but here he bound himself to the defendant to submit every demand, and cannot recede from his agreement.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Gutwirth v. Carewell Trading Corp.
20 Misc. 2d 64 (New York Supreme Court, 1959)
Burnham v. City of Milwaukee
75 N.W. 1014 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1898)
Burhans v. Union Free School District No. 1
24 A.D. 429 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1897)
Nashua & Lowell Railroad v. Boston & Lowell Railroad
41 N.E. 268 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1895)
Girdler v. Carter
47 N.H. 305 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1867)
Dickinson v. Hayes
31 Conn. 417 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1863)
Gerrish v. Pratt
6 Minn. 53 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1861)
Veghte v. Hoagland
29 N.J.L. 125 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1861)
Owen v. Boerum
23 Barb. 187 (New York Supreme Court, 1856)
Briggs v. Smith
20 Barb. 409 (New York Supreme Court, 1854)
Robinson v. Morse
26 Vt. 392 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1854)
King v. Savory
62 Mass. 309 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1851)
Burnham v. Webster
4 F. Cas. 781 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maine, 1846)
Stipp v. Washington Hall Co.
5 Blackf. 473 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1841)
Page v. Foster
7 N.H. 392 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1834)
Smith v. Whiting
11 Mass. 445 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1814)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
12 Johns. 311, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wheeler-v-van-houten-nysupct-1815.