Burbank v. Norris
Superior Court of New Hampshire
This was assumpsit, to recover $8.69, money bad and received to the plaintiff’s use (there was a sebond count for $40 had and received, inserted probably with a view to give the C. C. P. jurisdiction). Plea: the general issue. On the trial, at last Term, the facts appeared to be [as follows:] — Dec. 9, 1806, plaintiff and defendant submitted (by parol) all demands to arbitration.
Read the full summary
This was assumpsit, to recover $8.69, money bad and received to the plaintiff’s use (there was a sebond count for $40 had and received, inserted probably with a view to give the C. C. P. jurisdiction). Plea: the general issue. On the trial, at last Term, the facts appeared to be [as follows:] — Dec. 9, 1806, plaintiff and defendant submitted (by parol) all demands to arbitration. Award in favor of defendant for $13.82, payable in thirty days, and costs $7 ; a final settlement. The award was made in writing. The parties agreed to abide the award, and signed a writing to that effect; and the…
1Opinion of the CourtSmitit, C. J.
I. It is very clear that, if the parties had settled without the intervention of arbitrators, this action would have been maintainable. So, if the submission had been informal, and the award only advisory, or not binding ; if the arbitrators had been merely assistants at the settlement.
II. This was a regular and bindiñg award. It is a general rule that such an action as the present does not lie to relieve against mistakes in judgments; because it would defeat the great end of judgment, which is, that it puts a final end to J controversy. The merits cannot be re-examined. If re-examinable at…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Loring v. MansfieldMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1821
- Bobe's Heirs v. StickneySupreme Court of Alabama · 1860
- M'Kinstry v. SolomonsNew York Supreme Court · 1806
- Rowe v. SmithMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1820
- Binck v. WoodNew York Supreme Court · 1864
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Teddy Kyle Smith v. State of AlaskaCourt of Appeals of Alaska · 2021