Copney v. . Parks
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtDbviN, J.
The defendant concedes that there was evidence to support the verdict, but contends that by chapter 94, Acts of 1927, known as the Uniform Arbitration Act, an exclusive method for the determination of matters by arbitration was prescribed, and that plaintiff’s action to enforce an award based upon a parol agreement, not in accordance with the act, cannot be maintained.
The Uniform Arbitration Act of 1927 (codified in Micbie’s N. C. Code as secs. 898 [a] to 898 [x] ) provides that: “Two or more parties may agree in writing to submit to arbitration, in conformity with the provisions of this…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Utah Construction Co. v. Western Pacific Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1916
- Isaac v. Donegal & Conoy Mutual Fire Ins.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
- Fuerst v. EichbergerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1931
- Andrews v. . JordanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1934
- Gannon v. McClannahanCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1924
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Sukonik v. ShapiroSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
- Hargett v. . DelisleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1948
- Thomasville Chair Co. v. United Furniture Workers of AmericaSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1950
- Brown v. MooreSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1948
- Brown v. . MooreSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1948
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.