Parsons v. Hall
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
The plaintiff in this action, which was assumpsit, having a demand against the defendant’s testator, they mutually agreed, by a memorandum in writing, without seal, to submit it to the determination of three referees, and to abide by their award. The defendant appeared at the hearing before the referees, and after remaining a short time, went away, observing that he had no doubt but they would do right.
Read the full summary
The plaintiff in this action, which was assumpsit, having a demand against the defendant’s testator, they mutually agreed, by a memorandum in writing, without seal, to submit it to the determination of three referees, and to abide by their award. The defendant appeared at the hearing before the referees, and after remaining a short time, went away, observing that he had no doubt but they would do right. The award was in favor of the plaintiff for the amount of his demand, and the defendant refusing to perform it, this action was brought upon the agreement. At the trial of this cause, which…
1Opinion of the CourtMellen, C. J.
In an action upon an award, or on the bond given for the performance of it, the general principle of law is that the merits of the award cannot be examined, nor can it be impeached, except for the corruption, partiality or misconduct of one or more of the arbitrators, or on account of some fraudulent concealment of facts *62by one of the parties. These positions are supported by the following-cases. 1 Saund. 327. note d. 2 Burr. 701. Kleine v. Catara 2 Gall. 61. 2 Vesey Jr. 15. Newbury Port Mar. Ins. C. v. Oliver & al. 8 Mass. 402. Homes v. Aery 12 Mass. 134. The receipt which was offered in…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Kleine v. CataraU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1814
- Homes v. AeryMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1815
- Newburyport Marine Insurance v. OliverMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1812