Herron v. Henry

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania November 7, 1913

Herron v. Henry, 242 Pa. 494 (Pa. 1913)

89 A. 590; 1913 Pa. LEXIS 915

Bbown, Elkin, Mestbezat, Moschziskeb, Potteb

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

As a defense to the claim of the plaintiff, the defendant relied at the trial of this case solely on an award. *497which had been made years before in his favor by a board of arbitrators selected under the rules of the Grain and Flour Exchange of Pittsburgh, to settle the dispute between him and the appellee; but that award on appeal to the general committee of the exchange, taken under its rules, was reversed, and was therefore unavailing to the defendant in this proceeding, unless the action of the general committee was vitiated by fraud. With the exclusion of the original award made in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict under the pleadings, and that the said award was properly excluded clearly appears from the opinion of the court below denying a motion for a new trial. Nothing need be added to it. J udgment affirmed.

Reference

Status: Published
Syllabus: Contracts — Assumpsit—Set-off—Award of arbitrators — Fraud in procuring award — Immaterial evidence. In an action of assumpsit for goods sold and delivered, defendant sought to set-off a sum which had been awarded him in another dispute with plaintiff, by a board of arbitrators selected under the rules of a grain and flour exchange to which both parties had subscribed. It appeared that the award had been reversed by a committee having authority to hear and determine appeals from the board of arbitrators. Defendant offered evidence that plaintiff had been expelled from the exchange by the board of managers for fraud and collusion in securing the reversal of the award. It was admitted by defendant that the board of managers had no authority to interfere with the decisions of the committee which had reversed the award. The court excluded the evidence as incompetent to show that the reversal of the award had been obtained by collusion and fraud, and directed a verdict for plaintiff upon which judgment was entered. Held, no error.