Paist v. Caldwell
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Chester county: No. 107, to July Term 1873. On the 20th of February 1872, Peter Caldwell brought an action of assumpsit against Edward Paist, George Mackey and Phineas Paist, on a promissory note for $500, made by the defendants to the plaintiffs. The record shows the following proceedings, amongst others:— “ Sept. 27. Defendants by their attorneys enter a rule of reference. Arbitrators to be chosen Oct. 26th 1872, &c.
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Chester county: No. 107, to July Term 1873. On the 20th of February 1872, Peter Caldwell brought an action of assumpsit against Edward Paist, George Mackey and Phineas Paist, on a promissory note for $500, made by the defendants to the plaintiffs. The record shows the following proceedings, amongst others:— “ Sept. 27. Defendants by their attorneys enter a rule of reference. Arbitrators to be chosen Oct. 26th 1872, &c. “ Oct. 26. It is agreed that the rule of reference in the above case be stricken off, that no rules of reference shall hereafter be.…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered, January 26th 1874, by
Agnew, C. J.
What is termed a naked power to refer a subject of controversy to arbitration, is undoubtedly revocable. But where the agreement partakes of the nature of a contract, whereby important rights are gained and lost reciprocally, and the submission is the moving consideration to these acts, a different rule prevails. Such agreements are compromises, and should be faithfully adhered to, unless there has been fraud or corruption, or gross misbehavior by the referees. Interest veipublicce ut sit finis litium. The agreement…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Pittsburgh Union Stock Yards Co. v. Pittsburgh Joint Stock Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
- McCune v. LytleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1900
- Werneberg v. PittsburgSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
- Johnson v. CrawfordSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1905