Wilcox v. Singletary

Ohio Supreme Court

Wilcox v. Singletary

1 Wright 420, 1 Ohio Ch. 420

DecidedSeptember 15, 1833

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Wright 420 (Wilcox v. Singletary) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wilcox v. Singletary, 1 Wright 420, 1 Ohio Ch. 420 (Ohio 1833).

Pincite

Opinion

*BY THE COURT.

We think it very clear, that one of [421 several partners, joint .parties'to a suit, may lawfully contract to submit it to arbitrators, and bind his copartners. The consideration upon which a suit upon an award is sustained, is the contract of submission; 3 O. 513. The submission, therefore, in the case at bar, was good.

Whether the order for a non suit was fight or wrong, seems immaterial. If right, the order should have been enforced; if wrong, the evidence should have gone to the jury. In neither case had the court the power to direct the jury to find for the defendant. The order of non suit, if executed, would have left the parties free to commence a new suit; the verdict and judgment bars that right, and is erroneous. The judgment is reversed, and the case remanded back.

[Power of one partner to submit to arbitration; Fordyce v. Marks, 1 Rec. 257, 263 ; ib. 2 Rec. 392, 401.]

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

*BY THE COURT.

We think it very clear, that one of [421 several partners, joint .parties'to a suit, may lawfully contract to submit it to arbitrators, and bind his copartners. The consideration upon which a suit upon an award is sustained, is the contract of submission; 3 O. 513. The submission, therefore, in the case at bar, was good.

Whether the order for a non suit was fight or wrong, seems immaterial. If right, the order should have been enforced; if wrong, the evidence should have gone to the jury. In neither case had the court the power to direct the jury to find for the defendant. The order of non suit, if executed, would have left the parties free to commence a new suit; the verdict and judgment bars that right, and is erroneous. The judgment is reversed, and the case remanded back.

[Power of one partner to submit to arbitration; Fordyce v. Marks, 1 Rec. 257, 263 ; ib. 2 Rec. 392, 401.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Wright 420, 1 Ohio Ch. 420, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilcox-v-singletary-ohio-1833.