Hamlin v. Duke
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Laip Commissioner’s Court. I. The court erred in refusing to instinct the jury as requested. The award was a bar to the suit. (15 Wend. 99 ; 2 Hill, 271; Kyd on Awards, 261, 10 ; 12 Johns. 311; 19 Wend. 285.)
1Opinion of the CourtRichardson, Judge
The plaintiff brought an action before a justice of the peace, against the defendant, to recover damages for an injury done to his mule by the carelessness of the defendant’s servant. . It appeared on the trial that before the commencement of the suit, the parties submitted the controversy involved in this action to the arbitrament of two person»;, mutually selected by them, and agreed to abide by their decision, and that the arbitrators thus chosen made their award that the defendant should pay the plaintiff thirty-five dollars, of..which they notified the parties. It was not shown that…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Massman Construction Co. v. Lake Lotawana Ass'nMissouri Court of Appeals · 1948
- Williams v. PerkinsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1884
- Thatcher Implement & Mercantile Co. v. BrubakerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1916
- Carter v. ScaggsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1866
- Continental Bank Supply Co. v. International Brotherhood of BookbindersMissouri Court of Appeals · 1947
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.