Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

b. Of Submission by Bond. 1

Form No. 2125.

Know all men by these presents that I, John Doe, of Carrollton, in the county of Greene, am held and firmly bound to Richard Roe, of Marseilles, in the county of La Salle, in the sum of $5,000, lawful money of the United States, to be paid to the said Richard Roe, or his certain attorney, executors, administrators, or assigns;

40 N. J. L. 289; Williams v. Winans, 22 N. J. Eq. 574.

In New York.-Locke v. Filley, 14 Hun (N. Y.) 140; Merritt v. Thompson, 27 N. Y. 225; Cobb v. Dolphin Mfg. Co., 108 N. Y. 463

In North Carolina.-Long v. Fitzgerald, 97 N. Car. 40; Smith v. Kron, 109 N. Car. 103.

In Ohio.-Hunt v. Guilford, 4 Ohio 311; Springfield v. Walker, 42′ Ohio St. 543:

In Oregon.--Garrow v. Nicolai, Oregon 79.

-

24

In Pennsylvania. — Bayard v. Gillasspy, 1 Miles (Pa.) 256; Otis v. Northrop, 2 Miles (Pa.) 350; Gratz v. Philips, P. & W. (Pa.) 333; Bavington. Clark, 2 P. & W. (Pa.) 118; Wightman v. Pettis, 29 Pa. St. 283; McCracken v. Clarke, 31 Pa. St. 498; Quay v. Westcott, 60 Pa. St. 164; Boschert v. Brown, 72 Pa. St. 373; Paist v. Caldwell, 75 Pa. St. 163; Sargeant. Clark, 108 Pa. St. 588; James v. Sterrett, 137 Pa. St. 235; State Reporter's Case, 150 Pa. St. 551; McKenna . Lyle, 155 Pa St. 600; Woelfel v. Hammer, 159 Pa St. 448. In South Carolina. McCrady v. Jones, 36 S. Car. 145. In Texas.-Forshey 7. Galveston, etc., R. Co., 16 Tex. 518; Dockery v. Randolph, (Tex. Civ. App. 1895) 30 S. W. Rep. 271.

-

In Vermont.-Bachelder v. Hanson, 2 Aik. (Vt.) 323; Preston v. Whitcomb, 11 Vt. 47; Day v. Essex County Bank, 13 Vt. 97; Giddings v. Hadaway, 28 Vt. 342; Hartland v. Henry, 44 Vt. 593; Bowman v. Downer, 28 Vt. 533.

[ocr errors]

In West Virginia. Despard v. Pleasants County, 23 W. Va. 320.

In the United States Courts-Carnochan v. Christie, 11 Wheat. (U. S.) 449; U. S. v. Farragut, 22 Wall (U. S.) 413: Hamilton . Home Ins. Co., 137 U. S. 377.

1. Precedents of Submission by Bond -in Illinois.-Williams . Warren,

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

In Michigan. stock, 2 Mich. 360.

Clement v. Com

In New Hampshire. Eames v. Carlisle, 4 N. H. 201; Carey 7. Wilcox, 6 N. H. 177; Aldrich v. Jessiman, 8 N. H. 516; Richardson v. Huggins, 23 N. H. 106; Tracy v. Herrick, 25 N. H. 386; Quimby v. Melvin, 28 N. H. 250; Furber v. Chamberlain, 29 N. H. 412; Straw v. Truesdale, 59 N. H. 109.

In New York.-Matter of Williams, 4 Den. (N. Y.) 195; Owen v. Boerum, 23 Barb. (N. Y.) 190.

-

In North Carolina. Walker v. Walker, Winst. (N. Car.) 259; Brown v. Brown, 4 Jones (N. Car.) 124; Noble v. Wiggins, 7 Jones (N. Car.) 536; Mac Key v. Neill, 8 Jones (N. Car.) 214; Osborne v. Calvert, 83 N. Car. 366; Bryan v. Jeffreys, 104 N. Car. 243.

In Tennessee.-Cooley v. Dill, 1 Swan (Tenn.) 314; McDaniel v. Bell, 3 Hayw. (Tenn.) 260.

In Vermont.-Aspinwall v. Tousey, 2 Tyler (Vt.) 335; Patrick v. Adams, 29 Vt. 377.

In Virginia.-Richards v. Brockenbrough, 1 Rand. (Va.) 449.

In Wisconsin.-Pettibone v. Perkins, 6 Wis. 624.

In the United States Courts. Karthaus v. Ferrer, 1 Pet. (U. S.)

222.

for which payment, well and truly to be made, I bind myself, my heirs, executors, and administrators, firmly by these presents, sealed with my seal. Dated the tenth day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and ninety-six.

any

Whereas certain differences and disputes have arisen and are still pending between the said parties as to whether the said John Doe is indebted to the said Richard Roe in and what sum of money, and as to the price the said Richard Roe ought to pay for the stock in trade taken by him off the hands of the said John Doe, it is agreed by and between them that the same shall be referred to the award, order, arbitrament, final end, and determination of Samuel Short, of Carrollton, and William West, of Marseilles, and of such third arbitrator as the said Samuel Short and William West shall, by writing under their hands, to be indorsed on these presents, before they proceed in this arbitration, nominate and appoint to act with them. Now the condition of this obligation is such, that if the above bounden John Doc, his heirs, executors, and administrators, do and shall on his and their part and behalf in all things well and truly stand to, obey, abide by, observe, perform, fulfil, and keep the award, order, arbitrament, final end, and determination of the said arbitrators respecting the matters referred, so as the said arbitrators make and publish their award in writing of and concerning the same, ready to be delivered to the parties, or if they or either of them shall be dead before the making of the award, to their respective personal representatives who shall require the same, on or before the tenth day of June, or on or before any other day not later than the tenth day of July to which the said arbitrators shall by any writing signed by them, indorsed on these presents, enlarge the time for making their said award, then this obligation to be void, otherwise to remain in full force. Signed, sealed, and delivered in

the presence of John Jones. (

e. Of Submission by Deed. 1

Form No. 2126.

John Doe. (SEAL)

This indenture made between John Doe, of Carrollton, in the county of Greene, of the first part, and Richard Roe, of Marseilles, in the county of La Salle, of the second part. Whereas John Doc and Richard Roe have carried on the business of clothiers in partnership, and the accounts between them have become involved, and differences have arisen among them relating thereto, it is hereby agreed that the copartnership accounts and all matters in difference

1. Precedents of Submission by Deed -In Alabama.-Mackay v. Dodge, 5 Ala. 383; McCargo v. Crutcher, 23 Ala. 575; Crook v. Chambers, 40 Ala. 239; Horton v. Pool, 40 Ala. 630.

In Arkansas.-Walworth v. Miles, 23 Ark. 672.

In California.-Muldrow v. Norris, 12 Cal. 331; Carsley v. Lindsay, 14 Cal. 390; Fairchild v. Doten, 42 Cal. 125.

In Connecticut.-Gates v. Treat, 25 Conn. 73; Bushnell v. Ore Bed, 31 Conn. 151; Averill v. Buckingham,

between the parties shall be referred to the award, order, final end, and determination of Samuel Short, of Carrollton, and William West, of Marseilles, and in case the said arbitrators shall not agree in the determining any matter or thing, or matters or things, hereby referred to them, the matter or thing, or matters or things, on which they shall not agree, shall from time to time be referred to and determined by such person as they, the said arbitrators, shall appoint in writing. Now this indenture witnesses that they, the said John Doe and Richard Roe, do, and each of them doth, each for himself severally and respectively, and for his several and respective heirs, executors, and administrators, covenant and agree with each other, his heirs, executors, and administrators respectively, to stand to, abide by, observe, and perform the award and determination of the said Samuel Short and William West, or of the umpire appointed by the said arbitrators in writing, of and concerning the premises aforesaid, so as the said arbitrators or umpire make and publish their award (or umpirage) in writing, under their hands (or under their hands and seals), of and concerning the matters referred, ready to be delivered to the parties or any of them on or before the first day of June next, or on or before any other day not later than the first day of July to which the arbitrators shall by any writing signed by them indorsed on this submission from time to time enlarge the time for making their award. And it is further agreed that this submission may be made a rule of the Circuit Court of Greene county, at the instance of either the said

36 Conn. 360; In re Curtis-Castle Arbitration, 64 Conn. 502.

In Georgia.-Richardson v. Hartsfield, 27 Ga. 529; Stephens v. Hopper, 31 Ga. 589; South Carolina R. Co. v. Moore, 28 Ga. 405; Tison v. Sellars, 40 Ga. 710; Overby v. Thrasher, 47 Ga. 11; Mulligan v. Perry, 64 Ga. 568; Hardin v. Almand, 64 Ga. 583.

In Illinois.-Whetstone v. Thomas, 25 Ill. 361.

In Indiana.-Saunders v. Heaton, 12 Ind. 21.

In Iowa. McKinney v. Western Stage Co., 4 Iowa 421.

In Kentucky.-Cardwell v. Strother, Litt. Sel. Cas. (Ky.) 430.

[blocks in formation]

In Maine.-Day v. Hooper, 51 Me. 178; Duren v. Getchell, 55 Me. 243. In Massachusetts. Eastman Wright, 6 Pick. (Mass.) 316; Mickles v. Thayer, 14 Allen (Mass.) 115. In Mississippi.-Santacruz v. Santacruz, 44 Miss. 718.

In Missouri-Scudder v. Johnson, 5 Mo. 552; Frissell v. Fickes, 27 Mo. 557. In New Hampshire. — Atwood v. York, 4 N. H. 51; Steere v. Tenney, 50 N. H. 463; Davis v. Dyer, 54 N. H. 146.

In New Jersey.-Imlay v. Wikoff, 4 N. J. L. 149.

In New York.-Halstead v. Seaman, 82 N. Y. 28; Maddock v. Steel, 81 Hun (N. Y.) 509, 31 N. Y. Supp. 221; Allen v. Galpin, 9 Barb. (N. Y.) 247

In North Carolina.-Henderson v. Cansler, 65 N. Car. 542; Knight v. Holden, 104 N. Car. 107; Patton v. Garrett, 116 N. Car. 848. In Ohio.-Rice v. Hassenpflug, 45 Ohio St. 381.

In Pennsylvania.-Erie v. Tracy, 2 Grant's Cas. (Pa.) 20; Wynn v. Bellas, 34 Pa. St. 160; Wall v. Fife, 37 Pa. St. 395; Jones v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 143 Pa. St. 375.

In Rhode Island.-Sprague v. Hull, 6 R. I. 27; Wood v. Helme, 14 R. I. 326.

In South Carolina.-Betsill v. Betsill, 30 S. Car. 509.

In Tennessee-Gooch v. McKnight, 10 Humph. (Tenn.) 230.

In Virginia.-Pollock v. Sutherlin, 25 Gratt. (Va.) 82; White v. Gouldin, 27 Gratt. (Va.) 492.

[blocks in formation]

John Doe or Richard Roe, his executors or administrators, without any notice to the other of them.

In witness whereof the said parties hereto set their hands and seals, the first day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and ninety-six.

(SEAL)

John Doe.
Richard Roe. (SEAL)

Signed, sealed, and delivered in the presence of

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

And now, to wit: April 11, 1888, agreeably to the acts of assembly in such case made and provided the plaintiffs, by their attorney, enter a rule of reference, and state their determination to have a legal arbitrator chosen on the 27th day of April, 1888, at nine o'clock A..M. of that day, at the office of the prothonotary of said court for the trial of all matters in variance in the above suit between the parties.

[E. L. Whittelsey, Attorney for Plaintiffs.

I. John Hancock, Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas within and for the county of Erie, do hereby certify that the above is a true copy of a rule of reference entered of record in the above named court, the day and date above named.

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of said court this 11th day of April, A.D. 1888.

(SEAL)

John Hancock, Prothonotary.]1

b. Agreement of Counsel upon Legal Arbitrator.

Form No. 2128.

(Precedent in Cutler v. Richley, 151 Pa. St. 195.)

[(Caption as in Form No. 2127.)]2

We agree upon Gen. D. B. McCreary, Esq., as legal arbitrator in above case, and appoint May 10, 1888, at 10 o'clock A.M. as

1. The words enclosed in [ ] will not be found in the reported case, but have been added to render the form complete.

2. The words to be supplied within the [ ] will not be found in the reported case.

the time of hearing at the office of the arbitrator in the city of Erie, Ta. Notice of time and place of hearing is hereby waived.

[E. L. Whittelsey, Attorney for Plaintiffs.
E. A. Walling, Attorney for Defendant.]1

c. Order to Arbitrators on Compulsory Rule.
Form No. 2129.

(Caption as in Form No. 2127.)

And now, to wit, May 1, 1888, agreeably to an Act of Assembly entitled "An Act Relating to Reference and Arbitration," passed June 16, 1836, and in pursuance of a rule entered by the plaintiff in the above entitled action in the office of the prothonotary in said county, all matters in controversy between the said parties in the action aforesaid are referred to the arbitrament and award of Samuel Short, William West, and Joseph Hunt, who are to meet at the office of Samuel Short, in the city of Erie, in said county, on June 1, 1888, at nine o'clock in the forenoon, and there, in accordance with the aforesaid act, proceed to hear and determine said cause and to make their award thereon, and transmit the same to the prothonotary.

(SEAL)

John Hancock, Prothonotary.

5. Statutory Forms.

a. In Kentucky.

Form No. 2130.

(Barb. & Carr. (Ky.) Stat., c. 6, § 70.)

We, John Doe and Richard Roe, having a controversy respecting (here insert the matter in controversy), for the purpose of settling the same, have mutually chosen Samuel Short and William West arbitrators, who shall choose an umpire in case of disagreement, whose award we do hereby bind ourselves to perform, provided it is in writing. In witness whereof, we have hereunto set our hands this first day of June, A.D. 1896. John Doe. Richard Roe.

b. In Maine.

Form No. 2131.

(Rev. Stat. Me. 1883, c. 108, § 1.)

Know all men by these presents, that John Doe, of Addison, in the county of Washington, and Richard Roe, of Bethel, in the county of Oxford, have agreed to submit the demand made by said John Doc, against said Richard Roe, which is hereunto annexed (and all other demands between the parties, as the case may be), to the determination of Samuel Short, William West, and Joseph Hunt; and judgment rendered on their report, or that of a majority of them, made to the supreme judicial (or superior) court for the said county of Oxford, within one year from this day, shall be final.

1. The signatures of counsel do not appear in the agreement as it is get out in the reported case.

« ForrigeFortsett »