M'Curdy v. Daniell
Michigan Supreme Court
Appeal from Houghton; Streeter, J. Bill by William M’Curdy and Alexander M’Curdy, co-partners as M’Curdy Brothers, against Susan Daniell, to set aside an award of arbitrators. From a decree dismissing the bill, complainants appeal. The parties to this suit, having certain differences, agreed to submit them to arbitration. A contract was drawn providing for three arbitrators, one to be chosen by each párty to the controversy, and the two to choose a third.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Houghton; Streeter, J. Bill by William M’Curdy and Alexander M’Curdy, co-partners as M’Curdy Brothers, against Susan Daniell, to set aside an award of arbitrators. From a decree dismissing the bill, complainants appeal. The parties to this suit, having certain differences, agreed to submit them to arbitration. A contract was drawn providing for three arbitrators, one to be chosen by each párty to the controversy, and the two to choose a third. The award of any two was to be binding. Complainants objected to an award by two of the arbitrators, and insisted upon an award to be…
1Opinion of the CourtGrant, J.
(after stating the facts). There is no real dispute as to the facts. The evidence is overwhelming that it was agreed to strike out this provision of the contract, and that the complainants signed it with the understanding and belief that the defendant’s agent, who did the business for her, had erased it. He did in fact erase it in two places, but left it unerased in one. While it is true that the articles of submission were executed in triplicate, and that the complainants retained one, it is manifest that they rested upon the supposition that all the erasures had been made, and that the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange v. GavinMichigan Supreme Court · 1982
- City of Detroit v. A. W. Kutsche & Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1944
- Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange v. GavinMichigan Supreme Court · 1982