Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

(23) OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT.

Form No. 2181.

And I further award and direct that judgment be entered for the plaintiff (or defendant) in said action.

(24) OF JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT.

Form No. 2182.

Whereas it is agreed (or ordered) that I should be at liberty to direct judgment by default to be entered against the defendants, I award, order, and direct that judgment by default be entered against the defendants in the said action.

(25) ON A Demurrer.

Form No. 2183.

I award and adjudge that the complaint (or other pleading) is (or is not) sufficient in law (if for the plaintiff add: and that the plaintiff is entitled to recover from the defendant fifty dollars in respect of his claims in the said action).

(26) OF STET PROCESSUS.

Form No. 2184.

I award that the action shall cease and be no further prosecuted.

(27) OF NONSUIT, OR VERDict for Defendant.
Form No. 2185.

I award that the verdict which has been entered for the plaintiff be set aside, and instead thereof that a nonsuit be entered (or that a verdict be entered for the, defendant on all the issues).

c. The Conclusion.

Form No. 2186.

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand this first day of June, A.D. 1896.

Samuel Short.1

Signed and published the first day of June,
A.D. 1896, in the presence of

1. Where a matter is referred to three arbitrators, it must be shown in the pleading and by proof upon the trial that all the arbitrators acted, but it is not necessary that the fact should appear on the face of the award. It may be shown by parol evidence. Hoffman v. Hoffman, 26

John Jones.

(SEAL) 2

N. J. L. 175; Buxton . Howard, 38
Ind. 109.

2. The award need not be under seal unless the submission requires it to be so; the mere fact that the submission is under seal does not make it necessary to affix seals to the award. Owen v. Boerum, 23 Barb. (N.Y.) 187.

3. The Complete Form.1

Form No. 2187.

Whereas by a certain agreement in writing bearing date the tentl day of May, A.D. 1896, made between John Doe of Carrollton, in the county of Greene, and Richard Roe of Marseilles, in the county of La Salle, reciting that (here recite so much of the matters in difference as will explain and justify the subsequent directions of the award), it was agreed that the same should be referred to the award and final determination of me, Jeremiah Mason, of said Carrollton. And whereas it was further agreed that (here set forth such of the several powers and provisions in the submission as warrant the following directions of the award). Now I, the said arbitrator, award that the plaintiff had not at the time of the commencement of the said action, nor at any time since, any cause of action against the defendant, and that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover anything in the said action. And I further award that the plaintiff was at the time of the commencement of the said action and still is indebted to the defendant in the sum of five hundred dollars, which sum I direct the plaintiff to pay to the defendant forthwith. And I further award and direct that the plaintiff and defendant do each bear his own costs of the reference, and pay one half the costs of the award; and that if either party shall in the first instance pay

1. Precedents of Awards. In Alabama.—McCargo v. Crutcher, 23 Ala. 577: Young . Leaird, 30 Ala. 372; Jones. Blalock, 31 Ala. 181; Tuskaloosa Bridge Co. v. Jemison, 33 Ala. 476; King v. Jemison, 33 Ala. 500; McCrary 7. Harrison, 36 Ala. 578; Crook v. Chambers, 40 Ala. 239; Horton v. Pool, 40 Ala. 630; Yeatman v. Mattison, 59 Ala. 384.

In Arkansas.-Kirten v. Spears, 44 Ark. 171.

In California.-Pierson v. Norman, 2 Cal. 600; Carsley v. Lindsay, 14 Cal. 391; Blair v. Wallace, 21 Cal. 320; Jacob v. Ketcham, 37 Cal. 199.

In Connecticut.-Gaylord v. Gaylord, 4 Day (Conn.) 422; Brown v. Green, 7 Conn. 536; Ranney v. Edwards, 17 Conn. 311: Gates v. Treat, 25 Conn. 76; Bushnell v. Ore Bed, 31 Conn. 152; Averill . Buckingham, 36 Conn. 361; Waller v. Shannon, 44 Conn. 481; In re Curtis-Castle Arbitration, 64 Conn. 504.

In the District of Columbia.-Sangster . Quantrill, 1 D. C. 18; Swann Alexandria Canal Co., 1 D. C. 165. In Georgia.-Lockwood v. Saffold, 1 Ga. 72; Saffold v. Keenan, 2 Ga. 343 Crabtree . Green, 8 Ga. 11; Merchants' Bank . Taylor, 21 Ga. 336; Richardson v. Hartsfield, 27 Ga.

532; Walker v. Walker, 28 Ga. 143; South Carolina R. Co. v. Moore, 28 Ga. 407; Overby . Thrasher, 47 Ga. 12, etc.; Cobb v. Dortch, 52 Ga. 551; Hardin 7. Almand, 64 Ga. 584; Tompkins ~. Phipps, 68 Ga. 156.

In Illinois.-McDonald . Arnout, 14 Ill. 60; Low . Nolte, 15 Ill. 371; Reeves v. Eldridg, 20 Ill. 385; Williams v. Warren, 21 Ill. 542; Whetstone v. Thomas, 25 Ill. 361; Farr v. Johnson, 25 Ill. 522; Hinrichsen 7. Reinback, 27 Ill: 295; Stone v. Atwood, 28 Ill. 39; Smith v. Smith, 28 Ill. 56; Kanouse v. Kanouse, 36 Ill. 442; Marvin v. Collins. 48 Ill. 158; Burrows 7. Guthrie, 61 Ill. 76; Noyes v. McLaflin, 62 Ill. 475; Tucker v. Page, 69 Ill. 180; Darst v. Collier, 86 Ill. 97, Steere v. Brownell, 113 Ill. 418; Schmidt v. Glade, 126 Ill. 488; Leiter v. Pike, 127 Ill. 299.

[ocr errors]

In Indiana.-Jacobs . Moffatt, 3 Blackf. (Ind.) 396; McCullough v. McCullough, 12 Ind. 488; Carson v. Earlywine, 14 Ind. 257; Rice Loomis, 28 Ind. 402; Buxton v. Howard, 38 Ind. 110; Healy v. Isaacs, 73 Ind. 228; Bird v. Routh, 88 Ind. 49.

In Iowa.-Zook v. Spray, 38 Iowa 274; Foust . Hastings, 66 Iowa 525. In Kansas.-Weir . West, 27 Kan. 652.

the whole or more than half of the costs of the award, the other party shall repay him so much of the amount as shall exceed the half of the said costs.

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand this tenth day of
June, A.D. 1896.
Jeremiah Mason.

Signed and published the tenth day of June,
A.D. 1896, in the presence of

In Kentucky.-Shackelford v. Purket, 2 A. K. Marsh. (Ky.) 435; Adams v. Ringo, 79 Ky. 212.

In Maine.-Sawyer v. Freeman, 35 Me. 543; Ireland v. Todd, 36 Me. 150; Portland v. Brown, 43 Me. 223; Duren 7. Getchell, 55 Me. 247; Hersey v. Packard, 56 Me. 396; Littlefield v. Waterhouse, 83 Me. 308.

In Maryland.-Roloson v. Carson, 8 Md. 219; Maryland, etc., R. Co. v. Porter, 19 Md. 461; Bushey v. Culler, 26 Md. 538; Drane v. Hodges, 1 Har. & M. (Md.) 262; The State v. Stewart, 12 Gill & J. (Md.) 457.

In Massachusetts.-Peters v. Peirce, 8 Mass. 398; Barrows v. Capen, 11 Cush. (Mass.) 37; Rundell v. La Fleur, 6 Allen (Mass.) 480; Haven v. Winnisimmet Co., 11 Allen (Mass.) 379; Mickles v. Thayer, 14 Allen (Mass.) 116; Gleason v. Assabet Mfg. Co., 101 Mass. 72.

In Michigan.-Davidson v. Gunsolly, Mich. 390; Clement v. Comstock, 2 Mich. 360; Russell v. Klink, 53 Mich. 162; McArthur v. Oliver, 53 Mich. 300.

In Mississippi-Hand v. Columbus, Smed. & M. (Miss.) 203; Upshaw v. Hargrove, 6 Smed. & M. (Miss.) 287; Williams v. Williams, 11 Smed. & M. (Miss.) 394; Hill v. Hill, 11 Smed. & M. (Miss.) 618.

7'.

In Nebraska.-Murry v. Mills, I Neb. 457; Nelson v. Hiatt, 38 Neb. 479. In New Hampshire.—Richardson v. Huggins, 23 N. H. 108; Steere Tenney, 50 N. H. 463; Davis v. Dyer, 54 N. H. 146; Straw v. Truesdale, 59 N. H. 110.

In New Jersey.-Craig v. Craig, 9 N. J. L. 199; Bell v. Price, 22 N. J. L. 579: Hoffman v. Hoffman, 26 N. J. L. 175; Vunk v. Raritan River R. Co., 56 N. J. L. 397; Leslie v. Leslie, 50 N. J. Eq. 106.

In New York.—Metropolitan El. R. Co. v. Manhattan El. R. Co., 11 Daly (N. Y.) 396; Birkbeck v. Burrows, 2 Hall (N. Y.) 53; Ott v. Schroeppel, 7 Barb. (N. Y.) 436; Owen v. Boerum,

John Jones.

23 Barb. (N. Y.) 191; Doke v. James, 4 N. Y. 570; Flannery v. Sahagian, 134 N. Y. 86.

V.

In North Carolina. Moore Gherkin, Busb. (N. Car.) 74; M'Crae v. Robeson, 2 Murph. (N. Car.) 128; Jones v. Frazier, 1 Hawks (N. Car.) 380; Patton v. Baird, 7 Ired. Eq. (N. Car.) 257; Gibbs v. Berry, 13 Ired. (N. Car.) 389; Brown v. Brown, 4 Jones (N. Car.) 124; Noble v. Wiggins, 7 Jones (N. Car.) 536; Ballard

V.

Mitchell, 8 Jones (N. Car.) 154; Henderson v. Cansler, 65 N. Car. 543; Osborne v. Calvert, 83 N. Car. 367; Clanton v. Price, 90 N. Car 97; Long v. Fitzgerald, 97 N. Car. 41; Knight v. Holden, 104 N. Car. 108; Reizenstein v. Hahn, 107 N. Car. 157; Field v. Moody, 111 N. Car. 354; Patton v. Garrett, 116 N. Car. 850.

In Ohio.--Prouse v. Painter, Tappan (Ohio) 52; Hunt v. Guilford, 4 Ohio 312; Jenifer v. Hamilton County, 2 Disney (Ohio) 191; Rice v. Hassenpflug, 45 Ohio St. 381. In Pennsylvania. Bavington v. Clark, 2 P. & W. (Pa.) 118; Bayard v. Gillasspy, 1 Miles (Pa.) 257; Wightman v. Pettis, 29 Pa. St. 284; Brock v. Savage, 31 Pa. St. 414; McCracken 7. Clarke, 31 Pa. St. 499; Wynn v. Bellas, 34 Pa. St. 161; Boschert v. Brown, 72 Pa. St. 373; Jones v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 143 Pa. St. 376.

In South Carolina.-Betsill v. Betsill, 30 S. Car. 511, 512; McCrady v. Jones, 36 S. Car. 148.

In Tennessee. -Cooley v. Dill, 1 Swan (Tenn.) 315; Smith v. Crosswhite, 5 Humph. (Tenn.) 60; Dougherty v. McWhorter,7 Yerg. (Tenn.) 243.

In Texas.-Hooper v. Brinson, 2 Tex. 185; Dockery v. Randolph, (Tex. Civ. App. 1895) 30 S. W. Rep. 271.

In Vermont.-Webber v. Ives, I Tyler (Vt.) 441; Bachelder v. Hanson, 2 Aik. (Vt.) 323; Penniman v. Patchin, 5 Vt. 346; Judd v. Wilson, 6 Vt. 185; Wellman v. Bulkley, 6 Vt. 300; Barnett v. Peck, 6 Vt. 457; Preston v. Whitcomb, 11 Vt. 48; Emerson v.

IV. PROCEEDINGS ON A COMMON-LAW AWARD.

1. When Made by Arbitrators.

a. Declaration in Assumpsit on an Award.

Form No. 2188.

(Precedent in 1 Wentw. Pl. 92.)

[Markham and LeBlanc.

Trinity Term, 19 Geo. III.]1 Salop, ss. Robert Hale complains of John Charlton Kinchant, Esq., being in the custody of the marsha! of the Marshalsea of our lord the now king, before the king himself, of a plea of trespass on the case upon promises, for that whereas before the making of the promise and undertaking of the said defendant, hereafter next mentioned, to wit, on the eighth day of May, A.D. 1778, at Whitchurch in said county, divers disputes and differences had arisen and were then subsisting between the said Robert and the said John Charlton, and an action had been thereupon brought, and was depending in his majesty's court of the King's Bench at Westminster, in the county of Middlesex, by and at the suit of the said Robert against the said John Charlton, touching and concerning (here was set out the cause of the depending action); and whereas for the putting an end to the said disputes and differences, the said Robert and the said John Charlton, before the making of the promise and undertaking of the said John Charlton hereafter next mentioned, to wit, on the day and year aforesaid, at Whitchurch aforesaid, submitted themselves to the award, order, arbitrament, final end, and determination of one Joshua Leonard, gentleman, an arbitrator indifferently named, elected, and chosen, as well on the part and behalf of the said Robert as of the said John Charlton,2 to arbitrate, award, order, judge, and determine of and concerning the said disputes and differences; and whereas afterwards, to wit, on the fifteenth day of May, A.D. 1778, at Whitchurch aforesaid, the said Joshua Leonard, the arbitrator aforesaid, having taken upon himself the burthen of the said arbitration, in due manner made his award and determination in writing,3 of and concerning the premises so

Udall, 13 Vt. 477; Giddings v. Hadaway, 28 Vt. 343; Bowman v. Downer, 28 Vt. 533; Lamphire v. Cowan, 39 Vt. 421; Sabin v. Angell, 44 Vt. 523; Hartland v. Henry, 44 Vt. 594; Jewett v. Deiter, 59 Vt. 638.

In West Virginia.-Wheeling Gas Co. v. Wheeling, 8 W. Va. 332; State 2. Rawson, 25 W. Va. 25; Mathews v. Miller, 25 W. Va. 820; Rogers v. Corrothers, 26 W. Va. 240.

[blocks in formation]

Co., 108 U. S. 368; Gregory v. Stetson, 133 U. S. 580.

1. The formal parts of the declaration will not be found in the precedent, but have been added in order to render the form complete. For the formal parts in a particular jurisdiction consult the title DECLARATIONS.

2. In assumpsit or debt upon an award it is necessary to state in the declaration a mutual submission. See 2 Saund. 61 h, note 2, and cases cited. 3. If the award is required to be under seal the averment in the declaration must be accordingly. 2 Chit. Pl. 89, note z.

referred to him as aforesaid, bearing date the day and year last aforesaid, and thereby then and there awarded and declared that (here was set forth the substance of the award),1 so that the said Robert's then present demand would stand as underneath (that is to say, as the same was and is stated underneath the said award), the balance amounting to thirty-one pounds nine shillings and three pence, as by the said award more fully appears, of which said award the said John Charlton afterwards, to wit, on the fifteenth day of May aforesaid, at Whitchurch aforesaid, had notice, by reason of which said several premises the said John Charlton became liable to pay to the said Robert the said sum of thirty-one pounds nine shillings and three pence so awarded to him as aforesaid, when he,the said John Charlton, should be thereto afterwards requested; and being so liable, he,the said John Charlton, undertook, and then and there promised the said plaintiff, to pay him the said last mentioned sum of money when he, the said defendant, should be thereunto afterwards requested; yet the said defendant, not regarding his said promise and undertaking, but contriving and fraudulently intending craftily and subtilely to deceive and defraud the said Robert in this behalf, did not, nor would when he was so requested as aforesaid, or at any time afterwards, pay the said sum of thirty-one pounds nine shillings and three pence, or any part thereof, to the said Robert, but hath hitherto wholly neglected and refused and still neglects and refuses so to do, to wit, at Whitchurch aforesaid: [Whereupon the said Robert says that he is injured and hath sustained damage to the amount of sixty pounds, and therefore he brings his suit, etc.

John Doe

[blocks in formation]

(Precedent in 1 Wentw. Pl. 94; 1 Am. Pl. & Lawy. Guide 56.)4

[In the Common Pleas.

Cumberland, to wit. George

1. It is sufficient to show so much of the award only as to entitle the plaintiff to his action. Perry v. Nicholson, 1 Burr. 280; see also 2 Saund. 62 b, note 5.

2. It is said that this averment is unnecessary; the one party is as much bound to take notice of the award as the other unless the stipulation be that the award should be notified to the parties, in which case notice must be averred. 2 Saund. 62 a, note 4; but in Kingsley v. Bill, 9 Mass. 200, a declaration containing no allegation that the award was published or made known to the defendant except by the bringing of the action was held to be

Hilary Term, 1 Geo. III.]3 Atkinson, late, etc., gentleman,

fatally bad. But in Denman v. Bayless, 22 Ill. 302, the court expressed the opinion that in the Massachusetts case just cited it was provided in the submission that the parties should be notified of the award.

3. The formal parts of the declaration will not be found in the precedent, but have been added in order to render the form complete. For the formal parts in a particular jurisdiction consult the title DECLARATIONS.

4. See other precedents in 2 Chit. Pl. 119; Tillingh. Forms, 305; Humph; Prec. 598; 2 Rev. Swift's Dig. 480, 481: Oliver's Prec. (1st ed.) 133, 134, 135.

« ForrigeFortsett »