Richardson v. Cassily
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to the common pleas of Alleghany county. Patrick Cassily was the plain tiff below. On the 20 th of May 1828 an award of 40 dollars in his favour was rendered by arbitrators, under the compulsory arbitration law, from which the defendant below appealed. A submission by parol then took place, under which the following award was made.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the common pleas of Alleghany county. Patrick Cassily was the plain tiff below. On the 20 th of May 1828 an award of 40 dollars in his favour was rendered by arbitrators, under the compulsory arbitration law, from which the defendant below appealed. A submission by parol then took place, under which the following award was made. “ We, the undersigned, being chosen to settle all disputes between William Richardson and Patrick Cassily, do report, that in our opinion William Richardson ought to pay said Cassily the sum of 25 dollars, and pay all costs that may have accrued on the suit…
1Per curiam
The submission was by parol made out of court, not made a rule of court, and not restricted by its terms to matters in variance in the cause; and from the terms of the award it might seem that matters out of court had actually been passed upon by the arbitrators, who have directed the defendant to pay the plaintiff money, “and all costs that may have accrued on the suit in court.” What authority does such a submission give to treat the award as if it were made in the action 1 It was not made in the action, but the action was included in the submission. Being by parol, it might, perhaps, be…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Miller v. BrumbaughSupreme Court of Kansas · 1871
- City of Lenexa v. C. L. Fairley Construction Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1989
- Brendlinger v. YeagleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1867