This page is an unofficial LFoD record and is not legal advice. Verify the document against the official source before relying on it.
H. Parsons versus J. N. Aldrich
July 1, 1833 - Opinion
H. Parsons versus J. N. Aldrich.
Arbitrators are presumed to have, pursued the submission until the contrary appears....
It is necessary to prove the publication of the award only in cases where it has been stipulated in the submission that the award shall be notified to the parties.
A demand is necessary to sustain an action on an award only in cases where the award is to'pay money on request.
Assumpsit on an award made under a parol submission. On the trial'of thé cause upon the general issue, at September term, 1SS2, in the court of common pleas, it appeared in evidence, that the parties had certain claims against each other, which had been reduced to writing, and which they agreed to submit to the determination of three arbitrators. The arbitrators met, and having heard the parties, made an award, in writing, that the defendant was indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $33,50, “ to balance claims, demands and accounts between them, and that Parsons recover §38,50 balance of accounts, and costs taxed at §7,09, and arbitrator’s fees, $3.” No evidence was offered by the plaintiff to prove that the arbitrators published the award to the parties, or that any demand|was made of the defendant to pay the amount of the award before the commencement of the action. A verdict was taken, by consent, for the defendant, subject to the opinion of the court upon the foregoing case, and the cause afterwards transferred to this court for adjudication.
Young, for the plaintiff.
Wells, for the defendant.
Hi chardson, C. J.
delivered the opinion of the court.
It is said, on behalf of the defendant, that the arbitrators exceeded their authority because they awarded a certain sum to balance claims, demands and accounts between the parties, whereas nothing was submitted except certain claims which had been reduced to writing. But the arbitrators must be presumed to have pursued the submission until the contrary appears, and we must take it for granted that the sum awarded was to balance the claims, demands and accounts submitted; at least, until it is shown that there were otherjclaims, demands and accounts between the parties which were not reduced to writing and submitted. It is also said that the award was not published. But this is necessary only in cases where it has been stipulated in the submission that the award shall be notified to the parties. Caldwell, 195; 2 Chitty's Pl. 81 note u.
It is further contended, that a demand was necessary to sustain the action. But it is settled, that a demand is necessary only in cases where the award is to pay money on request. Caldwell, 197.
Case records
Open case page| Date | Record Text | Type | Party | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| July 1, 1833 | H. Parsons versus J. N. Aldrich Current page | Opinion | Supreme Court | Reporter |