New York Supreme Court, 1812

De Long v. Stanton

New York Supreme Court · Decided January 15, 1812

9 Johns. 38

Counsel

J. Duer, for the defendant., Storey and S. Jones, jun. contra., ■ Duer, in reply, said, that he did not pretend that parol evidence was admissible to explain or contradict the terms of the submission. Arbitrators, like all other persons acting under delegated powers, must pursue the terms of their authority. The terms used in this submission are merely to specify the subjects of difference. There must be an existing and legal cause of action. Parties never can be supposed to submit to the decision of arbitrators, matters about. which there is no dispute, and where their rights are clear and undoubted. If the arbitrators have power to decide on the meaning of the words “ causes of action,” and to give them what construction they please, there is an end to all distinction between a general and a special submission. Suppose the submission had been as to a'bond or specialty, and the arbitrators should choose to consider a promissory note as a specialty, and decide upon it, would their award be valid ?

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

The submission in this case was general, and embraced “ every demand and cause of action, in law or equity.” No language could have been more comprehensive. If the allegation of fraud, in'the sale of the farm, was true in fact, it was á cause of action embraced by the submission. (1 Salk. 211. 1 Lev. 162.) Parol evidence is not admissible to limit the extent of _ the submission, and to show that it was to be confined to matters actually in dispute or controversy; for this would be to contradict the bond. Nor can the defendant be admitted to show there was no such fraud as was alleged, for that would be to open the merits of the award, and to try over again a matter which had been included in the submission and the award. It was for the arbitrators to decide, secundum allegata et probata, whether the chárge of fraud was made out. Their decision upon the point was final, according to the doctrine laid down in Barlow v. Todd. (3 Johns. Rep. 367.) The evidence offered, on the part of the defendant, *43was, therefore, properly rejected at the trial, and the motion to set aside the verdict is denied.

Motion denied.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.