Legal Opinion

Browning v. Wheeler

New York Supreme Court

Decided July 15, 1840PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Demurrer to declaration. The action was covenant on an award, pursuant to a sealed submission to -two arbitrators of matters in litigation between the parties. The submission provided for an umpire, in case of disagreement, and contained mutual covenants to abide by the award. The declaration set out an award by the umpire that the defendant should pay to the plaintiff $1111,17, with certain costs to be taxed—for the recovery of which sums this action was brought.

Read the full summary

Demurrer to declaration. The action was covenant on an award, pursuant to a sealed submission to -two arbitrators of matters in litigation between the parties. The submission provided for an umpire, in case of disagreement, and contained mutual covenants to abide by the award. The declaration set out an award by the umpire that the defendant should pay to the plaintiff $1111,17, with certain costs to be taxed—for the recovery of which sums this action was brought. The declaration did not state that either the arbitrators or umpire were sworn, and for this omission, the defendant demurred.

1Opinion of the Court

By the Court,

Cowen, J.

It is not necessary to decide the question ' whether the 2 R. S. 446, 2d ed. § 4, be applicable to a common proceeding by arbitration. That section requires that the arbitrators shall be sworn. I should think the provision was intended of those cases [ *259 ] only where, *by the same statute, a judgment may be summarily entered on the award; though, upon the dicta in Wells v. Lain, 15 Wendell, 99, and Bloomer v. Sherman, 5 Paige, 575, counsel seem to think this may be a vexed question. But conceding that the 4th section *259reaches the case of a mere common law arbitration, it…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Wells v. LaneCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1835
  2. Elmendore v. HarrisCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1840
  3. Bloomer v. ShermanNew York Court of Chancery · 1836

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Glass-Pendery Consolidated Mining Co. v. Meyer Mining Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1883

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API