Bridgman v. Bridgman

• Decision Date: 31 March 1856
• Citation: 23 Mo. 272
• Parties: BRIDGMAN, Respondent, v. BRIDGMAN et al., Appellants.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

23 Mo. 272

BRIDGMAN, Respondent,

v.BRIDGMAN et al., Appellants.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

March Term, 1856.

1. A submission to arbitrators in writing is within the statute, although there is no clause authorizing a circuit court judgment to be entered upon the award made pursuant to the submission; so that an oath taken by the arbitrators, where the submission is in writing, but does not contain the above clause, is not a mere voluntary oath.

2. Where it is sought by a motion under the statute to vacate an award, it is not sufficient to show that the arbitrators erred in judgment merely, either as to the law or fact; partiality, corruption, or some one of the statutory grounds for vacating such award, must be shown.

Appeal from Ste. Genevieve Circuit Court.

T. C. Johnson, for appellants.

I. The first submission under which the arbitrators were sworn was abandoned. An entirely different one was made and they acted under it, but were not sworn. The law is express, that, “before proceeding to hear any testimony, the arbitrators shall be sworn faithfully to hear and examine the matters in controversy, and to make a just award according to the best of their understanding.” (R. C. 1845, sec. 3, p. 122.) The oath they take must be in writing. It is not for them to prove that they were sworn according to law. What oath they actually took must appear, and then it is for the court to say whether the oath was a compliance with the law. The action of the arbitrators under the second submission, without taking the preliminary oath and reducing it to writing, is null and void.

Noell, for respondents.LEONARD, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

There is no error in this record. The plaintiff proceeded for a judgment upon the award under the statute, but the defendants, treating it as a common law action, put in an answer to it as such, and also instituted proceedings on their part to vacate the award, upon the several grounds designated in the statute as sufficient for that purpose. The court treated both as proceedings under the statute; on the one side to confirm, and, upon the other, to vacate the award. The original submission was in writing, but contained no agreement that a circuit court judgment might be rendered upon the award, and, under this submission, the arbitrators were verbally sworn pursuant to the act. Afterwards, the parties, by agreement, in effect amended the original submission by executing a new submission, with the omitted clause, allowing a circuit court judgment, but otherwise of the same...