Miles v. Schmidt

Citation168 Mass. 339,47 N.E. 115
PartiesMILES et al. v. SCHMIDT.
Decision Date20 May 1897
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
COUNSEL

C.B. Southard and T. Parker, for appellants.

H.M. Rogers, for appellee.

OPINION

MORTON, J.

Perhaps, if the question were a new one, no objection would be found to permitting parties to select their own tribunals for the settlement of civil controversies, even though the result might be to oust the courts of jurisdiction in such cases. But the law has settled otherwise in this state. Rowe v. Williams, 97 Mass. 163; Wood v. Humphrey, 114 Mass. 185; Pearl v. Harris, 121 Mass. 390; Vass v. Wales, 129 Mass. 38; White v. Railroad Co., 135 Mass. 218. When the question is a preliminary one, or in aid of an action at law,--such, for instance, as the ascertainment of damages,--an agreement for arbitration will be upheld. Reed v. Insurance Co., 138 Mass. 575; Hutchinson v. Insurance Co., 153 Mass. 143, 26 N.E. 439; Wood v. Humphrey, supra. The defendant contends that the agreement for arbitration in this case goes no further than the assessment of damages. But it is expressly provided, among other things, that the referees shall "hear the parties, and determine whether or not there has been any violation of the agreements herein contained, *** and what damage either party has sustained" thereby, and that "the decision of a majority of said referees shall be final and binding on said parties." The evident intent is to submit all disputes relating to the performance of the agreement to the final decision of a tribunal constituted by the parties themselves. The referees are not only to assess the damages, but also are to determine whether there have been any violations of the agreement, and their decision in all matters is to be final. The agreement to submit to arbitration was therefore in violation of law, and the demurrer should have been overruled. Demurrer overruled and decree dismissing bill set aside.

To continue reading

Request your trial
31 cases
  • Electrical Research Products, Inc. v. The Vitaphone Corp.
    • United States
    • Court of Chancery of Delaware
    • February 6, 1934
    ......Jur. , § 1900; 5 C. J. . 20, 42, 53. . . Nor. would a court of equity order such a contract to be. specifically performed. Miles v. Schmidt , 168 Mass. 339, 47 N.E. 115; Tobey v. County of Bristol, Fed. Cas. 14,065, 3 Story 800; Story's Eq. Jur. ,. § 1900. . . ......
  • Lakube v. Cohen
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • October 26, 1939
    ...as respect the mode of settling the amount of damage, or the time of paying it, or the like-will be sustained.’ Miles v. Schmidt, 168 Mass. 339, 47 N.E. 115;Reed v. Washington Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 138 Mass. 572;Hutchinson v. Liverpool & London & Globe Ins. Co., 153 Mass. 143, 146, 147, 2......
  • Nakdimen v. Atkinson Improvement Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • July 4, 1921
    ...enforced. 36 Cyc. 577. The parties do not agree that the court may fix the rental. 123 Ia. 344; 6 Gill and J. 424; 6 Harr. and J. 485; 168 Mass. 339; 70 Mo. 69; 44 N.J.Eq. 349; 17 N.Y. 491; 7 N.C. 189; 1 Ohio St. 166; 3 Humph. 644. There is no ambiguity in the contract as to the right to us......
  • Marchant v. Mead-Morrison Mfg. Co.
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • December 3, 1929
    ...that the rule in Massachusetts at the making of this contract was the common-law rule as established in New York. Cf. Miles v. Schmidt, 168 Mass. 339, 47 N. E. 115;Lewis v. Brotherhood Acc. Co., 194 Mass. 1, 3, 4, 79 N. E. 802,17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 714. To hold that the contract covered dispu......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT