Wolf v. Augustine
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 526, Jan. T., 1896, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. Fayette Co., March T., 1895, No. 465, making absolute a rule to discharge a-rule to arbitrate. Rule to discharge and annul a rule of court to arbitrate.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 526, Jan. T., 1896, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. Fayette Co., March T., 1895, No. 465, making absolute a rule to discharge a-rule to arbitrate. Rule to discharge and annul a rule of court to arbitrate. The facts appear by the opinion of the court below, Mestrezat, J., which was as follows : The parties to the above action submitted all matters in controversy between them to arbitration by the following agreement under their hands and seals : “And now, to wit, February 16,1895, said Joseph Wolf and Jasper Augustine agree to submit all matters, including sales of land, equity…
1Opinion of the Court
Pub. Curiam,
It is very clear that where the submission makes no provision *582for filling vacancies in tbe board of arbitration, tbe occurrence of a vacancy by death or otherwise revokes the submission. In such circumstances the court possesses no power to compel the parties to select other arbitrators. The submission necessarily fails. The learned court below was certainly right in making absolute the rule to show cause why the rule to arbitrate should not be discharged and the proceedings thereunder dismissed, and the reasons for their action are very well set forth in the opinion filed, which…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Backus-Brooks Co. v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1927
- J. M. Davis Co. v. Shaler TownshipSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
- Otoe County Nat. Bank v. DelanyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1937
- Johnson v. CrawfordSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1905
- Holscher v. Ingalls Stone Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1917
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.