Bemus v. Clark
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Oraivford county. This was an action brought to recover the price of a mowing machine, sold by plaintiffs to defendant. The defence was deficiency in the machine, and that it was not such as represented by the plaintiffs, and of little or no value for the purposes intended.
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Oraivford county. This was an action brought to recover the price of a mowing machine, sold by plaintiffs to defendant. The defence was deficiency in the machine, and that it was not such as represented by the plaintiffs, and of little or no value for the purposes intended. On the 2d day of June, 1855, plaintiffs entered a rule of reference under the compulsory arbitration law, and H. B. Beatty, A. Clark, and William McLaughlin were appointed arbitrators, to meet on the 16th day of the same month. At the time and place fixed for the meeting, Beatty and…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered,
by Lowrie, J.
The Common Pleas may grant a new trial by setting aside an award under the compulsory arbitration law, if there has been misbehaviour in the arbitrators, or the award has been procured by corruption, or other undue means; but we cannot review their judgment in this respect any more than we can review their judgment on a motion for a new trial.
The question here is, is there anything on the record to justify the judgment ? We find a reference and an award; but the award is not by the arbitrators first appointed — there having been two persons…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Curran v. PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1919
- Chester v. McIntyre & Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1900