Rand, Johnson & Co. v. Peel

Mississippi Supreme Court October 15, 1896

Rand, Johnson & Co. v. Peel, 74 Miss. 305 (Miss. 1896)

Whitfield

Opinion of the Court

Whitfield, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The motion to vacate the award should have been sustained. *3072 Am. & Eng. Enc. L. (2d ed.), 646, 647, and authorities cited. This being the reference of an action at law, the award falling, the submission falls with it. Id., 813, subd. 19, and note 2. The award in such case is to be dealt with as to procedure here, and have the “ same effect as the final judgment of the court into which the award was returned. ’ ’

The judgment is reversed, the award set aside, cmd cause remanded.

Reference

Full Case Name: Rand, Johnson & Co. v. W. H. Peel, Exr.
Cited By: 1 case
Status: Published
Syllabus: 1. Arbitration and Award. Irregularities of arbitrators. Code 1892, ch. 6. An award returned into the circuit court by arbitrators appointed under $ 112, code 1892, should be vacated when it appears that after the submission of the case the arbitrators heard the unsworn testimony of one party, in the absence of and without the knowledge of the other or his counsel. 2. Sane. Appeal from award. Procedure. Code 1892, ch. 6. On an appeal from an award returned into and approved by the circuit court under § 112, code 1892, the award is dealt with by the supreme court, in the matter of procedure, as having the same effect as a final judgment of the trial court, and, when set aside, the submission falls with it.