Wear v. Ragan
Mississippi Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Chancery Court, ■ at Fulton. Hon. Henry Dickinson, vice chancellor. In June, 1853, the appellee filed his bill against the appellant, for the settlement of a partnership account, between them. In November of same year, the appellant answered, denying most of allegations of the bill. At the next term of the court, in May, 1854, no order was entered in the cause.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Chancery Court, ■ at Fulton. Hon. Henry Dickinson, vice chancellor. In June, 1853, the appellee filed his bill against the appellant, for the settlement of a partnership account, between them. In November of same year, the appellant answered, denying most of allegations of the bill. At the next term of the court, in May, 1854, no order was entered in the cause. On the 7th, 1854, before the next term of the court, the parties mutually entered into bond, binding them to abide by, and perform the agreement, and reciting that they had agreed to submit the matters in…
1Opinion of the CourtFisher, J.
The object of this bill in the court below, was to settle a disputed copartnership account between the parties.
After the cause stood at issue upon the pleadings of the parties, they entered into an agreement to submit the several matters in controversy to arbitration, with the further agreement, that the *87award should be returned into court, and a decree made thereon, according to the terms of the award.
The award having been made and returned into court, certain exceptions were interposed thereto, one of which is as follows: “ Because said award was not made under, 'and by virtue of a rule of…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Bruner v. C. Brewer & Co.Hawaii Supreme Court · 1911
- Peele v. North & South Carolina Railway Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1912
- Small v. LutzOregon Supreme Court · 1899