Taylor v. Scott

• Decision Date: 17 May 1887
• Citation: 26 Mo.App. 249
• Parties: WILLIAM TAYLOR, Respondent, v. J. W. SCOTT, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

26 Mo.App. 249

WILLIAM TAYLOR, Respondent, v. J. W. SCOTT, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of Missouri, St. Louis.

May 17, 1887

APPEAL from the Laclede County Circuit Court, W. J. WALLACE, Judge.

Affirmed with ten per cent. damages.

J. T MOORE, for the appellant.

JAMES MORAN, for the respondent.

OPINION

THOMPSON J.

This action was brought to recover the sum of five hundred and twenty-five dollars, alleged to be due on a bank check, given by the defendant to the plaintiff, which check had been dishonored and protested. The answer set up, substantially that, by reason of certain partnership transactions between the plaintiff and the defendant, nothing was due on the check, but a balance, in excess of the amount of the check was due from the plaintiff to the defendant, for which the defendant asked judgment. While the cause was depending in court, the parties agreed, in writing, to submit the whole controversy to two arbitrators, naming them. The arbitrators met, were duly sworn, gave notice to the parties, and, after several continuances, to accommodate the parties, proceeded with the hearing of the cause, from day to day, during a good many days. They then gave the parties ample time to prepare for argument, heard them in argument at very considerable length, took a considerable time to prepare their award, and finally delivered their award, by which they found that the sum of $365.55, was due from the defendant to the plaintiff. The award was signed by the arbitrators and attested by two subscribing witnesses. The whole proceeding appears to have been conducted in careful conformity with the statute, relating to arbitration. The statutory notice having been given to the defendant, that the plaintiff would move the court for judgment on the award, the defendant appeared and filed a motion to set aside the award, on several grounds, which may be summarized as follows: That the arbitrators made a gross miscalculation of figures; that they admitted illegal evidence; that the award contained gross mistakes; and asking that the matter be referred back to the arbitrators for correction. In support of this motion, two affidavits were filed; one of an expert book-keeper, and the other of a person who had been a book-keeper for the defendant; and also a petition of one of the arbitrators, who had been persuaded, subsequently to the award, that there might possibly be some mistake in it, and who desired to have it referred back to the arbitrators for correction. The court overruled this motion, and entered judgment for the plaintiff, in conformity with the terms of the award; from which judgment this appeal is prosecuted by the defendant.

I. The only question for decision is, whether the court erred in entering judgment upon the award. It is clear of all doubt that the court did not so err. According to the decision of this court in Mitchell v. Curran (1 Mo.App. 455) " there are five grounds, and only five, upon which the court will set aside an award. These are: (1) The insufficiency of the award. That means that it was not certain, final, or mutual; that it does not embrace all matters submitted to the arbitrators; or that it does embrace matters not submitted to arbitration. (2) A mistake, in fact or law, apparent on the face of the award. (3) Irregularity of the arbitrators in their proceedings: as a refusal or neglect to examine witnesses, or in not giving notice of the meetings. (4) Corruption, or misbehavior, of the arbitrators. (5) Fraud, or concealment of evidence, by the parties obtaining...