Form No. 2181.

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


Form No. 2x82.

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.


Form No. 2183.

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

Form No. 2 I 84,

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

Form No.21 85.

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

0. The Conclusion.
Form No. 2 1 86.

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand thisfirst day of

Yune, A.D. 1896. Samuel Sh0rt.1 (SEAL)a Signed and published thejirst day of 7am, A.D. 18.96, in the presence of . 701m Yones. 1. \Vhere a matter is referred to N. J. L. 175; Buxton 1‘. Howard, 38

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 mav be shown by parol evidence. Hod'man 1'. Hoffman, 26

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 afl‘ix seals to the award. Owen 1'. Boerum. 23 Barb. (N.Y.) i8". 1. Precedent: of Awards-In Alu- 532; Walker 1'. Walker, 28 Ga. 143;

3. The Complete Form.1
Form No. 2187.

\Vhereas by a certain agreement in writing bearing date the tentl day of May, A.D. 1896, made between 7012): Doe of Carrolltou, in the county of Greene, and Richard Roe of ./l[arsei/les, in the county of La Salle, reciting that (here recite so much of the matters in dlj'erence 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, Yeremiah 111030”, of said Carrollton. And whereas it was further agreed that (here set forth sur/z of the several powers and provisions in the submission as warrant thefollo'wl'lzg directions 0 the award). Now I, the said arbitrator, award that the plainti ‘ 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 ofji-ve hundred dollars, which sum I direct the plaintiff to pay to the defendant forthwith. And 1 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

bannr-McCargu 1'. Crutcher, 23 Ala. 577: Young 1'. Leaird, 3o Ala. 372; {ones r. Blalock,.3l Ala. 18!; T'uskaoosa Bridge Co. 1-. jemison, 33 Ala. 4.76; King 1'. jemison, 33 Ala. 50o; McCrary r. Harrison, 36 Ala. 578; Crook 1'. Chambers, 40 Ala. 239; Horton :-. Pool, 40 Ala. 63o; Yeatman r‘. Mattison, 59 Ala. 384.

In Arhrmsam-Kirtcn v. Spears, 44 Ark. 17:.

In CnI:_‘for1u'n.—Piex-son 1'. Norman, 2 Cal. 600; Carsley 1-. Lindsay, 14 Cal. 391: Blair v. Wallace, 2x Cal. 320; Jacob 1-. Ketcham, 37 Cal. 199.

In Counrrlirnl.—Ga_vlord 1'. Gaylord, 4 Day (Conn.) 422; Brown 1'. Green, 7 Conn. 536: Ranney 11. Edwards, 17 Conn. 311: Gates 1'. Treat, 25 Conn. 76: Bushnell :~. Ore Bed, 31 Conn. 152; Averill r'. Buckingham, 36 Conn. 361; \Valler 1'. Shannon, Conn. 48!; In re Curtis-Castle Arbitration, 64 Conn. 504..

In the District of CoIumbia.-—Sangster 1-. (.Luantrill, I D. C. 18; Swann 1-. Alexandria Canal Co., I D. C. 165.

In Grorgim-Lockwood 1'. Safl'old, l-Ga. 72; Safiold v. Keenan, 2 Ga. 343; Crabtree 1'. Green, 8 Ga. 1:; Merchants’ Bank P. Taylor, 2I Ga. 336; Richardson v. Mansfield, 2',- Ga.

South Carolina R. Co. 1'. Moore, 28
Ga. 407; Overby 1-. Thrasher, 47 Ga.
I2, etc.; Cobb 1-. Dortch, 52 Ga. 55!;
Hardin 1-. Almand, 64 Ga. 584‘; Tomp-
kins r'. Phipps, 68 Ga. 156.

In [Mink-McDonald t'. Arnout, 14. Ill. 60; Low 1-. Nolte, 15 Ill. 37!; Reeves 1'. Eldridg, 20 Ill. 385; Williams v. Warren, 21 II]. 54.2; Whetstone 1'. Thomas, 25 Ill. 36!; Farr 11. Johnson, 25 Ill. 522; Hinrichsen 1-. Reinback. 27 Ill: :95, Stone 1'. Atwood, 28 Ill. 39: Smith v. Smith, 28 Ill. 56; Kanouse 1-. Kanouse, 36 I1]. 442; Marvin v.Collins. 48 III. 158; Burrows 1'. Guthrie, 61 Ill. 76; Noyes 1-. McLaflin, 62 Ill. 4.75; Tucker 1-. Page, 69 III. 180; Darst z'. Collier, 86 Ill. 97, Steere 1'. Brownell, 113111.418; Schmidt 11. Glade. 126 Ill. 488; Leiter 1'. Pike, :27 III. 299.

In Indianm-Jacobs 1'. Mofl’att, 3 Blackf.v (1nd.) 396; McCullough 1-. McCullough, I2 Ind. 488; Carson 1-. Earlywine, r4. Ind. 257; Rice 1'. Loomis, 28 Ind. 402; Buxton 11. Howard, 38 Ind. no; Healy 1'. Isaacs, 73 Ind. 228; Bird 1-. Routh, 88 Ind. 49.

In [mum-200k 1'. Spray, 38 Iowa 274; Foust 1-. Hastings, 66 Iowa 52;.

In Kllflsns.—\vt‘ir 1-. “lost, 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

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


1. When Made by Arbitrators.

a. Declaration in Assumpslt on an Award.

Form No. 2 i 88.
(Precedent in I Wentw. PI. 92,)

{Markham and LeBlano.
Trinity Term. 19 Geo. 111.]1

Salop, ss. Robert Hale complains of 7ohn Charlton Kinchant, Esq., being in the custody of the marshal 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, i to wit, on the eighth day of rllay, 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 Yohn 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 .Viddlesex, by and at the suit of the said Robert against the said 7ohn 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 70hr: Charlton, before the making of the promise and undertaking of the said j‘ohn 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 Yoshua Leonard, gentleman, an arbitrator indifl'erently named, elected, and chosen, as well on the part and behalf of the said Rohert as of the said 70hr: Charlton,2 to arbitrate. award, order, judge, and determine of and concerning thepsaid disputes and differences; and whereas afterwards, to wit, on the fifteenth day of Jlay, A.D. 1778, at Whitchurch aforesaid, the said Yoshua 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 referred to him as aforesaid, hearing date the day and year last aforesaid, and thereby then and there awarded and declared that (lzcrc was set fort/z the substance of tile awara'),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 t/zree pence, as by the said award more fully appears, of which said award the said 70k?! C/tarlton afterwards. to wit, on the fifteenth day of fllay aforesaid, at uVzitc/mrr/z aforesaid, had notice, by reason of which said several premises the said 701m 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 701m Charlton, should be thereto afterwards requested ; and being so liable, he.the said j'olm Clzarlton,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; let 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 W/n'tclzurrlz aforesaid: [Whereupon the said Robert says that he is injured and hath sustained damage to the amount of sixty

Udall, 13 Vt. 477', Giddings 1r. Hadaway, 28 Vt. 343; Bowman 1). Downer, 28 Vt. 533; Lamphire v. Cowan, 39 Vt. 421; Sabin 11. Angel], 44, Vt. 523; Hartland 1!. Henry, 44 Vt. 594; Jewett :1. Deiter, 59 Vt. 638.

In West Virginim-Wheeling Gas Co. 2!. Wheeling, 8 W. Va. 332; State 1-. Rawson, 25 W. Va. 25; Mathews v. Miller, 25 W. Va. 820; Rogers v. Corrothers, 26 W. Va. 240.

In the United States Courts. — Thornton 11. Carson, 7 Cranch (U. S.)

597; Karthaus a. Ferrer, r Pet. (U. S.) 223; Lutz v. Linthicum, 8 Pet. (U. 5,) 167; Scruggs 11. Memphis, etc., R.

Co., :08 U. S. 368; Gregory 1'. 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. See2 Saund. 61 11, 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. P1. 89, note 2.

pounds, and therefore he brings his suit, etc. s Yokn Doe


Pledges to prosecute ' ’ 2 Richard 1208.18

[ocr errors]

[In tke Common Pleas. , Hilary Term, 1 Geo. [1].]?

Cumberland, to wit. I George Atkinson, late, etc.. gentleman,

1. It is sufficient to show so much of the award only as to entitle the plaintifi' to his action. Perry :1. Nicholson, 1 Burr. 280; see also 2 Sound. 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 11. 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

fatally bad. But in Denman 1’. 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.

8. 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. “9; Tillingh. Forms, 305 ; Humpht Prec. 598; 2 Rev. Swift’s Dig. 480, 481; Oliver's Prec. (1st ed.) 133, 134, 135.

« ForrigeFortsett »