Mitchell v. Wilhelm
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
WRIT of error to a judgment entered upon an award of arbitrators. Anthony Wilhelm against Nathan Mitchell. On the 13th of January 1836, defendant entered a rule of reference. The docket then exhibited this entry. On the 6th of February 1836, defendant appears in person, and plaintiff makes default; prothonotary chooses for him; it is agreed that the number of arbitrators be three: Charles Gale, Isaac Vincent, and George Watson, were appointed, to wit, &c.
Read the full summary
WRIT of error to a judgment entered upon an award of arbitrators. Anthony Wilhelm against Nathan Mitchell. On the 13th of January 1836, defendant entered a rule of reference. The docket then exhibited this entry. On the 6th of February 1836, defendant appears in person, and plaintiff makes default; prothonotary chooses for him; it is agreed that the number of arbitrators be three: Charles Gale, Isaac Vincent, and George Watson, were appointed, to wit, &c. On the 27th of February 1836, Charles Gale and George Watson met and appointed Neal Call, in place of Isaac Vincent, and were sworn, and…
1Per curiam
It is plain, the number was not fixed exclusively, by the prothonotary. The entry, that the plaintiff made default, that the prothonotary chose for him, and that it was agreed the number of the arbitrators should be three, indicates too clearly, that the officer acted throughout only as the representative of the absent party; but the error in -permitting the defendant to have a voice in fixing the number as well as in choosing, is cured by the plaintiff’s subsequent appearance and want of dissent when the arbitrators were sworn. The remaining point, however, is fatal. No authority is given to…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Henneigh v. KramerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1865
- Martin's EstatePennsylvania Orphans' Court, Sullivan County · 1933