Rudd v. Jones
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Chancery. From the Circuit Court for Jefferson County. Facts of the case Tsultj, arl>ltia tion and award. Suit in chancery* aside the award. Arbitrators, being the judges chosen by the parties themselves, constitute their ultimate tribunal, as to fact and law; and ¡mere error of judgment as to either, is no ground for reversing or vacating the award.
Read the full summary
Chancery. From the Circuit Court for Jefferson County. Facts of the case Tsultj, arl>ltia tion and award. Suit in chancery* aside the award. Arbitrators, being the judges chosen by the parties themselves, constitute their ultimate tribunal, as to fact and law; and ¡mere error of judgment as to either, is no ground for reversing or vacating the award. Excess in the amount awarded, is no ground for setting the award aside—unless it issogreatastoin dicate fraud, partiality or prejudice, or show conclusively that the arbitrators included matters in their decision which had not been submitted to…
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Robertson
-delivered the Opinion of the Court.
In 1831, Thomas Jones, of the city of Louisville, sold to James Rudd and Horatio Ball, co-merchants in the ’ same city, a large stock oí Queensware, then but recently imported from England, for a stipulated rate of advance on the prime cost; for which they were to make payment in instalments, to be secured by negotiable notes. The greater portion, possibly all, of the articles having been delivered, the purchasers refused to give their negotiable notes, in consequence of some misunderstanding, actual or feigned, as to the quantity and quality of the wares:…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Overly's v. Overly's DeviseesCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1858
- Ashland Iron & Mining Co. v. McDanielCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1924
- Reager's Administratrix v. Pennsylvania Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1916
- Dixon v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1924