Fink v. Fink
Cases that cite this one
11 later published cases cite this decision.
- Koht v. Towne (Iowa 1926)
- First National Bank in Cedar Falls v. Clay (Iowa 1942)
- Ames Canning Co. v. Dexter Seed Co. (Iowa 1922)
- Myer v. Gray (Iowa 1920)
- Farmer v. Ames-Farmer Canning Co. (Iowa 1920)
- Todd v. State Bank (Iowa 1917)
- Wilkinson v. Prichard (Iowa 1909)
- Gessner v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co. (N.D. 1906)
- Burkland v. Johnson (Neb. 1897)
- In re the Arbitration between Kreiss & Hotaling (Cal. 1892)
- Higgins v. Kinneady (Iowa 1866)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Two exceptions were taken to the award : First. That it was not filed within the time required by the submission. This objection is untenable.— The award, by the terms of the submission, was to be filed within five days after the arbitrators had concluded their labors, and not within five days after the date of their meeting. It was made on the 18th, and filed on the 23d, and by excluding the first, and including the last day, (Code, section 2513), it was delivered, or returned, within the five days. We do not stop to inquire whether it would not be good as a statutory award, though filed after the expiration of the five days, if made at the time fixed by the submission.
The second objection is, that the agreement of submission was not acknowledged as required by law. The Code provides that all controversies which might be the subject of a civil action, maybe submitted to arbitrators, and requires the parties to sign a.written agreement, specifying the demands submitted, the names of the arbitrators, and the court by which judgment on their award is to be rendered. The
Erorn these provisions we deduce, for the purpose of the present question, these propositions: First. That parties may submit a controverty to arbitration, that might be, but as yet is not, the subject matter of a suit. Second. That they, may submit by agreement, and without any order of court, any, or all the matters involved in any suit then pending between them. . Third. That the subject matter of a suit may also be made, by order of court, upon agreement of parties.
Tn the first and second cases, the agreement of submission must be acknowledged, as required in section 2100, but in the third, it need not be. The order of the court, in such a case, stands in the place of the acknowledgement. If not acknowledged, when required, the award cannot be received
In this case, the submission was made, of all the matters involved in a suit then pending, by agreement, but without any order of the court. The agreement, therefore, should have been acknowledged, to authorize the adoption and judgment upon the award, as upon the verdict of a jury. There was, consequently, no error in the action of the court. It would not have been proper to reject it, but the true course ivas to leave it, as the court below did, without action. We need not say that plaintiff has an ample remedy by an action upon the award.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.