Atlanta And Richmond Air Line R.R. Co. v. Prickett
| Decision Date | 31 July 1873 |
| Citation | 49 Ga. 266 |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
| Parties | ATLANTA AND RICHMOND AIR LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, plaintiff in err0r. v. MANGHAM & PRICKETT, defendants in error. |
Constitutional law. Award. Before Judge Hopkins. Fulton Superior Court. October Term, 1872.
For the facts of this case, see the decision.
Collier & Hoyt, by P. L Mynatt, for plaintiff in error.
Peeples & Howell; B. H. Hill & Son; T. P. Westmoreland, for defendants.
The plaintiffs brought an action against the defendant for the sum of $1,875 92. on an account stated for cross-ties furnished it. It appears in the record that the defendant elected to submit the facts and the law of the case to the presiding Judge, by not filing an issuable plea under oath, whereupon the Court appointed an auditor to ascertain the facts and report the same to the Court, under the provisions of the 3082d section of the Code. The parties appeared before the auditor and introduced evidence, without objection, so far as the record *shows. The defendant offered in evidence a written contract, signed by the parties, for the delivery of the cross-ties, containing the following stipulation: "The decision of the chief engineer of the company shall be final and conclusive in any dispute which may arise between the parties to this agreement relative to or touching the same, and each and every of said parties do hereby waive any rights of action, suit or suits, or any other remedy in law, or otherwise by virtue of said covenants, so that the decision of the chief engineer shall, in the nature of an award, be final and conclusive on the rights and claims of said parties." The chief engineer decided against the plaintiffs' claim. On the trial before the auditor, the evidence showed that the chief engineer had made a clear mistake in his award as to the number of cross-ties which the plaintiffs had delivered, and which had been received by defendant, and the auditor so reported. The evidence before the auditor also showed that the chief engineer was a stockholder in the defendant's company, and was, therefore, not a disinterested arbitrator which fact was not known to the plaintiffs at the time of the execution of the contract, and so the auditor reported, and upon the evidence before him, also reported in favor of the plaintiffs' demand. The Court affirmed the report of the auditor, by its judgment, to which the defendant excepted.
There was no point made before this Court as to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tribble v. Yakima Valley Transp. Co.
... ... awarded the contract to build a certain line of railroad for ... the appellant. The line extended ... R. Co. v ... Northcott, 15 Ill. 49; Atlanta & Richmond, etc., R ... R. Co. v. Manghan & ... ...
-
Alliance Ins. Co v. Williamson, (No. 17587.)
..."In this state, parties may obtain the same relief against an award in a court of law as in a court of equity." Atlanta & Richmond R. Co. v. Mangham & Prickett, 49 Ga. 266, 268; Eberhardt v. Federal Ins. Co., 14 Ga. App. 340, 80 S. E. 856. 3. The amendment sets forth, as an additional reaso......
-
Alliance Ins. Co. v. Williamson
..."In this state, parties may obtain the same relief against an award in a court of law as in a court of equity." Atlanta & Richmond R. Co. v. Mangham & Prickett, 49 Ga. 266, 268; Eberhardt v. Federal Co., 14 Ga.App. 340, 80 S.E. 856. 3. The amendment sets forth, as an additional reason why s......
-
Southern Mfg. Co v. R. L. Moss Mfg.Co
...that phase of the case, and with the subject of waiver, hereafter. In Milnor v. Georgia Railroad Co., 4 Ga. 385, Atlanta & Richmond Air Line Railway Co. v. Mangham, 49 Ga. 266, and Parsons v. Ambos, 121 Ga. 98, 102, 48 S. E. 696, all of which were direct equitable proceedings, it was held t......