Mississippi Cotton Oil Co. v. Buster
Mississippi Supreme Court
From the circuit court of Yazoo county. Hon. D. M. Miller, Judge. Mrs. Buster, appellee, was plaintiff; and the Cotton Oil Company, appellant, defendant in the court below. The proceeding was an application to the court, under Code 1892, § 105, to confirm an award. The formal award showed on its face that the parties appeared by counsel before the arbiters, but the original one, quoted in tbe opinion of tbe court did not so show.
Read the full summary
From the circuit court of Yazoo county. Hon. D. M. Miller, Judge. Mrs. Buster, appellee, was plaintiff; and the Cotton Oil Company, appellant, defendant in the court below. The proceeding was an application to the court, under Code 1892, § 105, to confirm an award. The formal award showed on its face that the parties appeared by counsel before the arbiters, but the original one, quoted in tbe opinion of tbe court did not so show. From a judgment in plaintiff’s favor tbe defendant appealed to tbe supreme court. Tbe facts sufficiently appear from tbe opinion of tbe court. It was improper for…
1Opinion of the Court
Calhoon, L,
delivered the opinion of the court.
The oil company and Mrs. Buster had a controversy about their dealings, and agreed, in writing, to submit it to arbitra*96tion, on the basis that “each party may select one arbitrator, and, in case said arbitrators cannot agree upon a decision, these said arbitrators may select a third person to act as umpire, and a decision, either by said arbitrators or. by one of said arbitrators and said umpire, when so selected, shall be final and binding upon both parties.” This instrument contained, also, a provision that the circuit court of the county should…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Steere v. BrownellIllinois Supreme Court · 1885
- Estice v. CockerellMississippi Supreme Court · 1853
3Cited by2 opinions
- Sapp v. BarenfeldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1949
- Craig v. BarberMississippi Supreme Court · 1988