Fairchild v. Doten
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Hinth Judicial District, County of Siskiyou. The parties to this action, having failed to settle their partnership accounts, made the following agreement of submission to arbitration: “ We, the undersigned, hereby mutually agree to submit all matters and questions in difference between us, touching and concerning the settlement, liquidation, and adjustment of the accounts between us, the respective members of the firm of Fairchild &…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Hinth Judicial District, County of Siskiyou. The parties to this action, having failed to settle their partnership accounts, made the following agreement of submission to arbitration: “ We, the undersigned, hereby mutually agree to submit all matters and questions in difference between us, touching and concerning the settlement, liquidation, and adjustment of the accounts between us, the respective members of the firm of Fairchild & Doten, and said firm. But this arbitration is not intended to embrace and does not affect any sum or sums of money due said…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Temple, J.:
There is great force and plausibility in the argument of the respondent that the evident intent of the framers of the Practice Act must have been that no appeal should be taken from a judgment rendered upon an award of arbitration; that review of the proceedings of the arbitrators should only be had upon a motion to vacate the award in the District Court, and that an appeal to this Court can only be taken from the order vacating or refusing to vacate tire award.
I think, however, the judgment upon an award is a judgment upon a proceeding commenced in the District…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Ryan v. DoughertyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1866
3Cited by4 opinions
- Crofoot v. Blair Holdings Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1953
- In Re Abrams and BrennanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1905
- Matter of SillimanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
- Willis Finance & Construction Co v. PorterCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928