Richards v. Smith
Utah Supreme Court
Appeal from District Court, Third District; before Justice T. D. Lewis. Action by Joseph S. Richards 'against Joseph F. Smith. From the judgment entered on an award of arbitrators, plaintiff appeals. APPELLANT'S POINTS. It is well settled that the award is void, if it goes beyond the issues limited by the submission, where the matter ultra vires cannot be separated.
Read the full summary
Appeal from District Court, Third District; before Justice T. D. Lewis. Action by Joseph S. Richards 'against Joseph F. Smith. From the judgment entered on an award of arbitrators, plaintiff appeals. APPELLANT'S POINTS. It is well settled that the award is void, if it goes beyond the issues limited by the submission, where the matter ultra vires cannot be separated. (White v. Arthur. 59 Cal. 34 [citing Cald., Arb. 227-232, Morse on Arb. 340] ; Stubbings v. McGregor, 86 Wis. 248, 56 N. W. 641; Am. & Eng. Ehc. Law [2 Ed.], p. 739; Qarrow v. Nicolai [Ore.], 32 Pac. 1037; Gamochan v. Christie, 11…
1Opinion of the Court
McOARTT., C, J.,
after making the foreg'oing statement of the ease, delivered the opinion of the court.
Appellant contends that “the award is void because beyond the terms of submission, in this, the arbitrators undertook to determine the right of action as matter of law, which was not submitted but conceded or reserved by the parties.” That is, it is urged by appellant that the submission on its face shows that the parties conceded that the contract with respect to the sale of land existed between them, and that there was a breach of the contract, and therefore the only question for…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Patrick v. BattenMichigan Supreme Court · 1900
3Cited by2 opinions
- Robinson & Wells, P.C. v. WarrenUtah Supreme Court · 1983
- In Re the Arbitration & Award Between Idaho Gold Dredging Corp. & Boise Payette Lumber Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1930