Mills v. Conner
Indiana Supreme Court
ERROR to the Dearborn Circuit Court. — The following entry ■in this case, of April term 1812, is the first notice of it in the record of the proceedings below: “Conner v. Mills. This cause is referred to the arbitrament and final determination of Elijah Sparks and James Moble, or their umpire, to report to the next term of this Court.”
Read the full summary
ERROR to the Dearborn Circuit Court. — The following entry ■in this case, of April term 1812, is the first notice of it in the record of the proceedings below: “Conner v. Mills. This cause is referred to the arbitrament and final determination of Elijah Sparks and James Moble, or their umpire, to report to the next term of this Court.” At the April. term 1813, the third term from that in which the -above rule was entered, the arbitrators, after stating that by consent of parties they had proceeded to make their award, reported in favour of Conner 275 dollars; and there was judgment…
1Opinion of the CourtHolman, J.
There is no evidence in the record, either of the defendant’s consent tp this rule of reference, or even of his ap*8pearance in Court. The statement of the arbitrators in the preface to their award, as to the consent of the parties, was foreign their duty, and is no proof of the fact. A rule of reference thus made by the Court, without the consent of the defendant appearing on the record, is erroneous. But the rule, bad if been correct, gave the arbitrators no authority to make an award beyond the next succeeding term of the Court. The award however was made, as appears on the face of it, long…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Holker v. ParkerSupreme Court of the United States · 1813
- Inhabitants of Buckland v. Inhabitants of ConwayMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1820
- Johnson v. HarveyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1808
- Barton v. PetitSupreme Court of the United States · 1813
3Cited by2 opinions
- Moore v. BarnettIndiana Supreme Court · 1861
- Gaspar v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1859