Williams v. . Justice

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Williams v. . Justice

18 S.E. 672, 113 N.C. 502

DecidedSeptember 5, 1893

StatusPublished

This text of 18 S.E. 672 (Williams v. . Justice) 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

Williams v. . Justice, 18 S.E. 672, 113 N.C. 502 (N.C. 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

While an arbitrator in a submission, under a rule of Court, has a limited power, to make amendments (Morse on Arb. and Award, 207) it does not extend to the making of new parties, and when such are made the award will be set aside, unless it appears that all parties consented. There are several defendants, and it appears that their attorney objected to the making of new parties. This, of course, must be taken as the objection of all of the defendants, and it is not insisted that more than one of them consented. As to this defendant (Chapman) he asked the Court, in his *503 answer, to hold that there was no cause of action stated in the complaint against him, and prayed that, if the Court held otherwise, the Hyatts should be made parties plaintiff. The arbitrator, over the objection of all the defendants, made the new parties upon the ground that the said defendant Chapman had asked for such an order, but this was not binding on the other defendants, and it must follow that his Honor was correct in his ruling. Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam:

While an arbitrator in a submission, under a rule of Court, has a limited power, to make amendments (Morse on Arb. and Award, 207) it does not extend to the making of new parties, and when such are made the award will be set aside, unless it appears that all parties consented. There are several defendants, and it appears that their attorney objected to the making of new parties. This, of course, must be taken as the objection of all of the defendants, and it is not insisted that more than one of them consented. As to this defendant (Chapman) he asked the Court, in his *503 answer, to hold that there was no cause of action stated in the complaint against him, and prayed that, if the Court held otherwise, the Hyatts should be made parties plaintiff. The arbitrator, over the objection of all the defendants, made the new parties upon the ground that the said defendant Chapman had asked for such an order, but this was not binding on the other defendants, and it must follow that his Honor was correct in his ruling. Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 S.E. 672, 113 N.C. 502, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-justice-nc-1893.