Herrick v. Blair
New York Court of Chancery
THE bill stated, that, on the 31 st of March last, the parties to the bill submitted their matters in difference, relative to a lease of five acres of land, at Greenbush, from the plaintiff to the defendants, for five years, &c. to three arbitrators, and entered into arbitration bonds accordingly; that the arbitrators met, and heard the parties and their proofs; and after the arbitrators were left alone to deliberate, they called before them a witness who had been already…
Read the full summary
THE bill stated, that, on the 31 st of March last, the parties to the bill submitted their matters in difference, relative to a lease of five acres of land, at Greenbush, from the plaintiff to the defendants, for five years, &c. to three arbitrators, and entered into arbitration bonds accordingly; that the arbitrators met, and heard the parties and their proofs; and after the arbitrators were left alone to deliberate, they called before them a witness who had been already sworn and examined; and, without the knowledge, or consent, or presence of the parties, examined the witness “ to matters…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
There was nothing done, in this case, by the arbitrators, from which misconduct canbe.infer*102red. They only called awitness before them, who had been already examined in the presence of the parties, to explain his testimony concerning which the arbitrators differed. It not alleged, nor is it to be inferred, that the witness deposed differently, as to any fact, from what he meant to have testified, and to have been understood, on the first examination. The case does not come up to that of Walker v. Frobisher, (6 Ves. 70.,) for there the arbitrator, after he had told the parties…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Insurance Co. of North America v. HegewaldIndiana Supreme Court · 1903
- Garvey v. CareyThe Superior Court of New York City · 1868
- Smith v. CooleyNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1874
- Bradshaw v. Agricultural InsuranceNew York Supreme Court · 1891
- Davis v. CilleySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1860
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.