Legal Opinion

Huggins v. Neill

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided July 16, 1896No. Appeal, No. 27PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Appeal, No. 27, April T., 1896, by defendant, from order of C. P. Crawford Co., May T., 1879, No. 204, striking off a rule of reference and an amicable submission to a legal arbitrator under the provision of the act of April 6, 1870. Rule to strike off rule of reference. Before Henderson, P. J. The facts are stated by the opinion of the Superior Court as follows: The defendant entered a rule to have arbitrators chosen under the compulsory arbitration law.

Read the full summary

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Rice, P. J.,

(after stating the facts as set out in above statement of facts) :

It is argued, that, as the parties waived the right of trial by jury, and agreed to a “ legal arbitration,” the law ought to hold them to their agreement. But the question is not whether the submission to arbitration was revocable at the mere will of one of the parties — being, by rule of court, under the statute, of course it was not — but whether it was revoked by operation of law upon the death of the arbitrator. A voluntary submission, coupled with an agreement that the prothonotary may enter judgment…

2Cases cited3 opinions

North Lebanon Railroad v. McGrannSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1859
Potter v. SterrettSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1855
Shreiner v. CumminsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1870

3Cited by1 opinion

Holscher v. Ingalls Stone Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1917