Bishop v. Valley Falls Mfg. Co.

• Decision Date: 05 October 1907
• Parties: BISHOP v. VALLEY FALLS MFG. CO. NOLEN v. SAME.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

58 S.E. 939

78 S.C. 312

BISHOP v. VALLEY FALLS MFG. CO.

NOLEN v. SAME.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

October 5, 1907

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Spartanburg County; R Withen Memminger, Judge.

Actions by George C. Bishop against the Valley Falls Manufacturing Company, and by C. B. Nolen against the same defendant. From a decree awarding a writ of mandamus to compel the entry of judgment in favor of each plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Stanyarne Wilson, for appellant.

Johnson & Nash, for respondents.

WOODS J.

This is an appeal from a decree of Judge Memminger awarding a writ of mandamus to compel the clerk of the court of common pleas to enter judgments in favor of each of the plaintiffs on awards of arbitrators. The important question is whether the agreement contemplated an arbitration under the statute or at common law; for, if there was valid award under a statutory arbitration, then, under the statute, it was the clear ministerial duty of the clerk to enter the judgment in accordance with the award.

The plaintiffs, George C. Bishop and Mrs. C. B. Nolan, had instituted separate actions against Valley Falls Manufacturing Company for damage to their lands alleged to be flooded by the defendant's dam. While the actions were pending, parties to the suits made the separate arbitration agreements now under consideration. The agreements were identical, and we first consider whether on their face without respect to the affidavits before the circuit judge they show an intention of the parties to have an arbitration under the statute. In the absence of express stipulations on the subject, we think the presumption is in favor of a statutory arbitration. In early times the disposition of the courts was to look with jealousy on arbitrations, and give them as little force as possible, but later and more intelligent judicial sentiment is strongly in their favor. As said in Greenville v. Spartanburg, 62 S.C. 125, 40 S.E. 147, "courts favor awards, and will indulge every reasonable presumption to uphold them, and whoever assails them has the burden of clearly establishing their invalidity." An award under an arbitration at common law was not the end of the matter, for, unless the losing party chose to comply with it, the successful party was obliged to incur the delay and expense of bringing his action to enforce compliance. To remedy this defect, many states have passed statutes providing for and regulating arbitration, and authorizing the entry of judgment on the award itself. The statutes are remedial, and should be liberally construed, so as to advance the legislative purpose of putting an end to litigation. When parties enter into an agreement designed to end litigation their contract as far as its language will allow should be construed to be effectual and complete to that end. Hence when on its face the contract may be regarded as...