Amos v. Buck

• Decision Date: 09 March 1888
• Citation: 37 N.W. 118,75 Iowa 651
• Parties: AMOS v. BUCK.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

75 Iowa 651

37 N.W. 118

AMOS

v.BUCK.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

March 9, 1888.

Appeal from district court, Page county; GEORGE CARSON, Judge.

Action by T. B. Amos against Joseph Buck upon an award by arbitrators. There was a trial by jury, which resulted in a verdict and judgment for the defendant. Plaintiff appeals.G. B. Jennings and W. W. Morsman, for appellant.

James McCabe, for appellee.

ROTHROCK, J.

The agreement for arbitration was as follows: “We, the undersigned, hereby mutually agree to submit all our matters of difference, of every name and nature, to the award and determination of I. G. Burnet, W. N. Maloney, and H. I. Foskett, of Page county, Iowa, for them to hear and determine the same, and make their award in writing as soon as they can, but not before August 1, 1886; and said award to be filed by them in the Commercial Bank of B. M. Webster, Essex, Iowa.” The award made in pursuanceof the agreement, and upon which the suit is founded, is as follows: “ESSEX, IOWA, October 8, 1886. T. B. Amos vs. Joseph Buck. We, the undersigned, arbitrators in the above-entitled cause, find from the evidence submitted to us that said defendant is at present indebted to plaintiff in the sum of three hundred eighty-two dollars and forty cents.” The answer of the defendant was a denial of the right of recovery upon the award, upon the ground that the hearing was had and conclusion reached by the arbitrators without giving the defendant an opportunity to appear and be heard in his own behalf, and that the arbitrators failed to examine all the matters of difference between the parties; that they acted on a single transaction between the parties, and did not consider other transactions necessary to be examined and passed upon in order to ascertain and determine the true condition of affairs between them.

By an amendment to the answer, the defendant averred that the award was procured by the fraud of the plaintiff and his attorneys, in inducing the arbitrators to hear said cause without reasonable notice to the defendant, and upon unsworn statements of the plaintiff and his brother. Without detailing the evidence here, it is sufficient to say that we think the jury were fairly warranted in finding that the hearing was had, and the award made, without giving the defendant reasonable notice thereof, so that he could attend and prove up his claims against the plaintiff in a proper manner; and it may also be fairly found, from the evidence, that the arbitrators considered but one claim in dispute between the parties, when there were other claims of the defendant in their hands which were not considered, because the defendant was not present to testify thereto, and that the award was made up without giving the defendant a reasonable opportunity to substantiate said claims.

The appellant complains because the court permitte...