Wheeler v. Van Houten
New York Supreme Court
IN ERROR, from the court of common pleas of Orange County. Wheeler brought - an action of assumpsit against Van Houten, in the court below, and the defendant pleaded the , . . . » i _ i « v - general issue.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR, from the court of common pleas of Orange County. Wheeler brought - an action of assumpsit against Van Houten, in the court below, and the defendant pleaded the , . . . » i _ i « v - general issue. At the trial of the cause, the defendant proved, that he and the plaintiff, on the 28th day of February, 1812, before the commencement of the suit, mutually agreed to submit the final adjustment of all their demands against each other to arbitrators, and pledged themselves to abide their award; and *• ° ' that the arbitrators did award and order that Wheeler, the pree r sent plaintiff,…
1Per curiam
In Reeve v. Farmer, (4 Term Rep. 146.) it was ¡held, that on a submission to arbitration “ of all matters in differ-ence,” the award was conclusive on the parties, as to all causes of action subsisting between them previously to the submission; but that where it could be shown, that the subject of the action was not a matter in difference at the time of the submission, nor was referred by the parties to the arbitrators, the award would be no bar. The case of Golightly v. Jellico, in a note to the case cited, turns on the same principle.
These decisions do not bear out the plaintiff in…
2Cited by17 opinions
- Dickinson v. HayesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1863
- Smith v. WhitingMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1814
- Nashua & Lowell Railroad v. Boston & Lowell RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1895
- Gerrish v. PrattSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1861
- Burnham v. City of MilwaukeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1898
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.