Field v. Oliver
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to First District Court. I. The award, not being witnessed by a subscribing witness when made, was not such as the statute authorizes the court to give judgment upon. (Gen. Stat. 1865, pp. 771-2, §§ 1, 6, 10, 11, 28 ; 1 Greenl. Ev. § 569 ; Call v. Dunning, 4 East. 54 ; Rex v. Harringworth, 4 Maulé & S. 353.) II.
Read the full summary
Error to First District Court. I. The award, not being witnessed by a subscribing witness when made, was not such as the statute authorizes the court to give judgment upon. (Gen. Stat. 1865, pp. 771-2, §§ 1, 6, 10, 11, 28 ; 1 Greenl. Ev. § 569 ; Call v. Dunning, 4 East. 54 ; Rex v. Harringworth, 4 Maulé & S. 353.) II. If the award was imperfect, or needed correction or amendment, the party in whose favor it was made should have given notice to the other and moved the Circuit Court for leave to amend or correct the same. (Same statute above cited; Newman v. Labeaume, 9 Mo. 29.) TTT. The court…
1Opinion of the CourtWagner, Judge
This was a motion in the Lafayette Circuit Court to have an award of arbitrators made a judgment of that court. The motion was made by Field. Oliver appeared and filed his answer tq the motion, sotting up the ground that the award was not such as by statute would authorize the court to render judgment upon it, because the same was not attested by a subscribing witness, as the statute requires. The answer further set up, as an equitable defense, that Field was indebted to Oliver on two several promissory notes, which were not included in the submission and award, and which were for a greater…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Collins v. FarquarCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1823
3Cited by19 opinions
- Barnes v. McMullinsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
- Armor v. FreySupreme Court of Missouri · 1913
- Wright v. SalisburySupreme Court of Missouri · 1870
- Foote v. ClarkSupreme Court of Missouri · 1890
- Tucker v. AllenSupreme Court of Missouri · 1871
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.