Anderson v. Taylor
Decision Date | 30 June 1870 |
Citation | 41 Ga. 10 |
Parties | WILLIAM M. ANDERSON, administrator, plaintiff in error. v. THOMAS L. TAYLOR, trustee, defendant in error. |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Arbitration and Award. Certainty. Before Judge Alexander. Pulaski Superior Court. October Term, 1869.
This case is bottomed upon the submission to arbitration of two actions of ejectment pending in said county. One was in favor of Thomas L. Taylor, as trustee for his wife, formerly Mary J. Pickett, against William M. Anderson, as administrator of William W. Mayo, for the north half of land lot number one hundred and eighty-four, the south half of number one hundred and eighty-five, all of numbers one hundred and ninety four, one hundred and ninety-five, a part of number one hundred and ninety-six, being a strip on the southeast side of the Hawkinsville road, containing in the aggregate four hundred and five acres, in the 12th district of said county. The other was by the same plaintiff against one Polhill, who held under said Mayo, for a portion of the same land. Those suits were brought in March, 1863, in the lifetime of Mayo, and to each the general issue and statute of limitations were pleaded.
*In January, 1866, said plaintiff and said Anderson, as administrator, submitted these suits and the matter of mesne profits to arbitrators who were to decide the same, acting according to law, unless a legal right was waived by either, pending the cause. The submission stated that these lands in the first suit named were "the same as sold by John Pickett, as administrator of James Pickett, " and that those in the second suit named, were "for a portion of the same lands bought by John H. Pickett from the estate of James Pickett, and which W. W. Mayo sold to Mrs. Jane Pickett, the grantee of said Polhill, and liable over for same on his warranty of it all."
The two arbitrators selected by the parties, selected their umpire. What proceedings were had before them does not appear by the record, except as hereinafter is stated. In August, 1866, they made an award as follows: This award was entered upon the minutes of the Court at October Term, 1866.
Anderson filed exceptions to it upon the following grounds: 1st. Because neither he nor his counsel were ever served with a copy of the award before the term, nor within the first three days thereof, and never saw the original till the term. 2d. Because "the evidence before the arbitrators showed that the defendant's intestate, and those under whom he claimed, had been in the quiet, peaceable and uninterrupted and adverse possession of said lands, under color of title, from the time John H. Pickett and William M. Mayo purchased them, on the first day of February, 1842, till the commencement of the suit for them as aforesaid, in 1863, a period over twenty years, during all which time said Mary Jane Taylor had either a guardian or trustee who had the right to sue for said lands." The recovery of said lands, orany part of them, *was therefore barred by the statute of limitations, and the award was contrary to law and illegal. 3d. The award is void for uncertainty, in that it does "not designate what land, or locate it anywhere, in any State, county or district." 4th. and not only that, but on the first day of May, 1855, soon after her marriage, she and her said husband, the said Thomas L. Taylor, and Jane Taylor, the only other heir to the estate of the said James Pickett, "released and surrendered all right and claim in and to said body of lands, (including the said lands so sold on the 1st of February, 1842, as aforesaid,) to him, the said Mayo;" also all right of suit or action to set aside the original sale "of said land on the said 1st of February, 1842, or in anywise to disturb or molest said Mayo in the enjoyment or title to said property,
These objections were demurred to ore tenus, and the demurrer was sustained, and the award was made the judgment of the Court. Plaintiff in error says said objections were sufficient in law as stated.
Eli...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Benton v. Singleton
... ... award. See Crabtree v. Green, 8 Ga. 8; Sasseen v ... Weakley, 34 Ga. 560, 564; Anderson v. Taylor, ... 41 Ga. 10, 20; Overby v. Thrasher, 47 Ga. 10; ... Thrasher v. Overby, 51 Ga. 91; Forbes v ... Turner, 54 Ga. 252; Hardin v ... ...
-
Osborn & Walcott Mfg. Co v. Blanton
...to sustain the award, it should be upheld. That this instruction was correct cannot, at this late day, be reasonably doubted. See Anderson v. Taylor, 41 Ga. 10; Tomlinson v. Hardwick, Id. 547; Akridge v. Patillo, 44 Ga. 585, 587; Overby v. Thrasher, 47 Ga. 10; Forbes v. Turner, 54 Ga. 252; ......
-
Brush v. Fisher
...clear proof of corruption and fraud. Morse, Arb. 293, 298; WaterPower Co. v. Gray, 6 Metc. 131; Burchell v. Marsh, 17 How. 344; Anderson v. Taylor, 41 Ga. 10; Lester v. Callaway, 73 Ga. Kirten v. Spears, 44 Ark. 166; Railroad Co. v. Myers, 18 How. 246; Winship v. Jewett, 1 Barb. Ch. 173; Pe......
-
Bates v. British Am. Assur. Co
...judgment on the part of arbitrators will justify the setting aside of an award, nor mistake of fact, unless gross and palpable. Anderson v. Taylor, 41 Ga. 10; Overby v. Thrasher, supra. An award should not be disturbed but for strong reasons, which are plainly shown to exist. Tomlinson v. H......