Blossom v. . Van Amringe and Others
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Bill, which ha.cl been referred, and was heard upon exceptions to the award before Barnes, J, at Spring Term 1868 of the Court of Equity for New Haítover. This cause, (which has been before the Court previously, Phil.
Read the full summary
Bill, which ha.cl been referred, and was heard upon exceptions to the award before Barnes, J, at Spring Term 1868 of the Court of Equity for New Haítover. This cause, (which has been before the Court previously, Phil. Eq. 133) together with the action of Trover mentioned therein, as well as the question of the “ Arbitration fee," was referred in the Court below, at Spring Term 1867, to three persons, who made their award, and returned it at the last term, when exceptions were filed by the defendants and sustained by his Honor, whereupon the plaintiff appealed. The details of the award, so far…
1Opinion of the Court
PeáRSON, C. J.
“Arbitrators are no more bound to go into particulars and assign reasons for their award, than a jury is for its verdict. The duty is best discharged by a simple announcement of the result of their investigations.” Patterson v. Baird, 7 Ire. Eq., 255.
The award under consideration seems to have been drawn up with a special reference to this principle; and all of the exceptions, except two, are so fully met by it, that we do not feel called upon to discuss them in detail; and the two which do not fall under this principle, as it seems to us, may be disposed of in a very few words.
1…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Stearns v. CopeIllinois Supreme Court · 1884
- Pickens v. . MillerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1880
- Osborne v. . CalvertSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1880
- Mayberry v. . MayberrySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1897
- Clanton v. . PriceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1884
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.