Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

Opinion of the Court, per FINCH, J.

wholly independent of unknown facts and certain not to be affected by them.

In such an emergency we must remember that if we force this title upon the purchaser, he may have to confront the heirs-at-law in a future litigation. They are not before us and will not be bound by our decision. They will have a right to be heard, both as to the facts and the law, and since the question is doubtful and quite evenly poised, we think we ought not to expose the purchaser to the possible risks of the situation. We have, therefore, briefly stated the question sufficiently to disclose its general character, and without any argument upon it, which would be improper in view of our conclusion.

For the reason given, and without deciding the question involved, we think the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

All concur except Earl, J., not voting.
Judgment affirmed.

MEMORANDA

OF THE

CAUSES DECIDED DURING THE PERIOD EMBRACED IN THIS

VOLUME, WHICH ARE NOT REPORTED IN FULL.

John W. Masury, Appellant, v. William H. WHITON,

Executor, etc., Respondent.

111 679 169 497 169 499

The award of an arbitrator cannot be set aside for mere errors of judg

ment as to the law or facts. If the arbitrator keeps within his jurisdiction and is not guilty of fraud, corruption or other misconduct affecting his award, it is unassailable.

(Argued October 15, 1888; decided November 27, 1888.)

APPEAL from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered upon an order made February 15, 1887, which affirmed a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term.

This was an action to set aside an award. The answer set up the award as a counter-claim, asking judgment for the amount awarded. The trial court found against the plaintiff, dismissed the compaint and gave judgment for defendant on the counter-claim. The court here, after a discussion of the facts, reach the conclusion that the arbitrator did not exceed his jurisdiction and that there was no evidence of any misconduct on his part.

The following is the mem. of opinion:

66 The award of an arbitrator cannot be set aside for mere error of judgment as to the law or facts of the case submitted to him. If, in making his award, he keeps within his jurisdiction and is not guilty of fraud, corruption or other misconduct affecting his award, then his award is unassailable. (Perkins

v. Giles, 50 N. Y. 229; Morris River Coal Co. v. Salt Co., 58 id. 667; Fudickar v. Guardian Mutual Life Ins. Co., 62 id. 392).”

John L. Hill for appellant.

Moody B. Smith for respondent.

Earl, J., reads for affirmance.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.

111 680 112 528

In the Matter of the Application for Letters of Administra

tion on the Goods, Chattels and Credits of David WALKER WILLIAMS, Deceased.

(Argued October 19, 1898; decided November 27, 1888.)

APPEAL from order of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, made March 31, 1887, which affirmed a decree of the surrogate of the county of New York granting letters of administration to the mother of the decedent, a non-resident.

Thomas Jackson for appellant.

William Allen Butler for respondent.

Agree to affirm on authority of In re Page (107 N. Y. 266).
All concur.
Order affirmed.

CORNELIA M. BIDEN et al., Respondents, v. EDWARD F. JAMES,

Impleaded, etc., Appellant.

(Argued October 26, 1888; decided November 27, 1888.)

APPEAL from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered upon an order made November 19, 1886, which affirmed a judgment

in favor of plaintiffs, entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term.

T. F. Hamilton for appellant.

Henry II. Man for respondents.

Agree to affirm; no opinion.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.

JULIEN T. DAVIES, as Receiver, etc., Respondent, v. James D.

Fisu et al., Appellants.

(Argued November 27, 1888; decided December 4, 1888.)

APPEAL from order of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, made January 3, 1888, which reversed an order of Special Term allowing certain parties to intervene and defend herein.

G.W. Cotherill for appellants.

James Byrne for respondent.

Agree to dismiss appeal; no opinion.
All concur.
Appeal dismissed.

Tue NATIONAL IRON BANK, Respondent, v. PATRICK FARRELLY,

Appellant.

(Argued October 13, 1888; decided December 4, 1888.)

Morion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the General Term of the Court of Common Pleas in and for the city and county of New York, entered on an order made January 14, 1887, which affirmed a judgment of the General Term of the City Court of New York, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff.

SICKELS – Vol. LXVI. 86

II. C. Beecher for motion.

Abbett & Fuller opposed.

Agree to dismiss appeal; no opinion.
All concur.
Appeal dismissed.

GEORGE E. FUECHSEL, Respondent, v. Anna BELLESHEIM et al.,

Appellants.

(Argued October 16, 1888; decided December 4, 1883.)

Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered upon an order which affirmed a judgment of Special Term in favor of plaintiff.

Flamen B. Candler for motion.

Henry H. Davis opposed.
The following is the mem, of decision :

“ It does not appear that notice of this motion was served on the infants or their guardian or attorney, and for that reason, as to them, it is denied. As to the adult appellant the motion is granted, without costs.”

All concur.
Ordered accordingly.

GEORGE W. GLYNN, Administrator, etc., Appellant, v. The

SEAMAN'S BANK FOR SAVINGS IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent.

(Submitted November 27, 1888; decided December 4, 1888.)

Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the General Term of the Court of Common Pleas in and for the city and county of New York, made May 12, 1887, which affirmed a judgment of the General Term of the City Court

« ForrigeFortsett »