Norton v. Hayden
Michigan Supreme Court
Where one member of a partnership transfers his interest in the firm assets to his copartner under an agreement that the amount to be paid therefor shall be determined by arbitrators, the making and delivery of an award in the manner-provided for is a condition precedent to the right to maintain an action for the purchase price; and this, even though the arbitration has failed by reason of the inability of the arbitrators to agree.
Read the full summary
Where one member of a partnership transfers his interest in the firm assets to his copartner under an agreement that the amount to be paid therefor shall be determined by arbitrators, the making and delivery of an award in the manner-provided for is a condition precedent to the right to maintain an action for the purchase price; and this, even though the arbitration has failed by reason of the inability of the arbitrators to agree. Error to Jackson; Peck, J. Assumpsit by Ernest Y. Norton against Henry Hayden to recover the purchase price of goods sold. Prom a judgment for defendant on verdict…
1Opinion of the CourtGrant, J.
(after stating the facts). Two questions are involved: (1) Had the court of law jurisdiction ? (2) Was the making and delivery of an award a condition precedent to the right of action ? The two questions are so intimately connected that they will be discussed together.
*685In his opening statement to the court and jury, after stating the facts, the attorney for the plaintiff thus stated his claim:
“This action is brought in assumpsit, based upon the agreement of October 18, 1898, and the actual transfer by bill of sale at that time of the property to Mr. Hayden, and to carry out the terms of that…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- President of Delaware & Hudson Canal Co. v. Pennsylvania Coal Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Chippewa Lumber Co. v. Phenix InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1890
- Ball v. DoudOregon Supreme Court · 1894
- Boots v. SeinbergMichigan Supreme Court · 1894
- Guthat v. GowMichigan Supreme Court · 1893
3Cited by8 opinions
- Wold Architects and Engineers v. StratMichigan Supreme Court · 2006
- E. E. Tripp Excavating Contractor, Inc. v. Jackson CountyMichigan Court of Appeals · 1975
- Hetrick v. FriedmanMichigan Court of Appeals · 1999
- Weggner v. GreenstineMichigan Supreme Court · 1897
- Young v. McGuanSupreme Court of Kansas · 1940
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.