Newman v. Labeaume
Supreme Court of Missouri
APPEAL from St. Louis Circuit Court. POINTS AND AUTHORITIES. I. Judgment should not have been entered oft the award, because there were no subscribing witnesses, as required by statute. Revised Code, 71, § 6. 1. The award was complete, and the office and character of the arbitrators had terminated when the witnesses signed.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from St. Louis Circuit Court. POINTS AND AUTHORITIES. I. Judgment should not have been entered oft the award, because there were no subscribing witnesses, as required by statute. Revised Code, 71, § 6. 1. The award was complete, and the office and character of the arbitrators had terminated when the witnesses signed. Watson on arbitration, 83 (9 Law Library.) 3 Greeuleaf R,85; 6 Easts R. 309; 4 Easts R. 684 9 8 Easts R. 54; Hardin’s R. 227 ; 2 Littell’s R. 54; 1 Coxe R. 144; l Coxe R. 485. 2. The proper oath was not taken by the arbitrators. II. The award should be vacated. 1st, for…
1Opinion of the CourtNapton, J.
During the pendency of an action of assumpsit in the St. Louis court of common pleas, brought by Messrs. Labeaume against Newman, the parties entered into an agreement under their hands and seals to submit that matter, and all matters in relation to a co-partnership formerly existing between them, and all other matters in difference between them, to the arbitration of three persons, to wit: Seth A. Ranlett, Alfred Chadwick and Joseph Ridgway. The two former were chosen by the parties respectively, and the latter selected by the two first. By the articles of submission, the award was to be…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Tucker v. AllenSupreme Court of Missouri · 1871
- Reily v. RussellSupreme Court of Missouri · 1864
- Kamerick v. CastlemanMissouri Court of Appeals · 1888