Brown v. Harness
| Decision Date | 27 November 1894 |
| Docket Number | 1,385 |
| Citation | 38 N.E. 1098,11 Ind.App. 426 |
| Parties | BROWN v. HARNESS |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
From the Howard Circuit Court.
Judgment affirmed.
J. C Blacklidge, C. C. Shirley and B. C. Moon, for appellant.
M. Bell and W. C. Purdum, for appellee.
The appellant and appellee were partners engaged in buying and selling live stock. Certain differences arose between them concerning their partnership business. They selected three persons to arbitrate the differences existing between them. It was agreed that the report of the arbitrators should be made a rule of the Howard Circuit Court. The arbitrators awarded the appellee the sum of $ 718.86.
When the report was filed in the circuit court the appellant appeared and moved to modify and correct said award, and filed six separate exceptions thereto.
The appellee moved to strike out these exceptions.
The court overruled the motion as to the first and sustained it as to all the others.
The appellant assigns these adverse rulings as error, and the appellee assigns as a cross-error the overruling of the motion as to the first exception.
In the second exception the appellant alleged that the arbitrators in making their award, and in the consideration of the matters submitted to them, made a miscalculation of the figures and proof offered as to an item of $ 300, giving the same no consideration whatever, which item of $ 300 was received in the way of cash by the appellee, and of and from the appellant at the town of Galveston, Cass county, Indiana on the 15th day of April, 1892; that in the addition and calculation of figures and the matters of difference, said arbitrators either forgot to allow appellant credit for said item or made a miscalculation of the same to that extent, and for which the appellant was entitled to credit.
The third exception is similar in character to the second, and embraces two items, one of $ 206.65 and the other of $ 21.75.
The fourth exception proceeds upon the same theory as to an item of $ 252.25.
The fifth proceeds in the same manner as to an item of $ 450.
The sixth simply sets forth the aggregate amount of all these items, which amount is $ 1,230.65.
The settlement of controversies by arbitration is favored by the law and encouraged by the courts, and for the purpose of sustaining an award, technical objections should be disregarded, and every fair intendment should be drawn to uphold it. It is a determination or result reached by a tribunal selected by the parties themselves, and the policy of the law forbids that the controversy should again be opened except it be impeached by fraud, corruption, partiality or undue means or other misconduct on the part of the arbitrators. Section 857, R. S. 1894.
The law, however, will permit a correction or modification of the award when there is an evident miscalculation of the figures or mistake in the description of any person or thing, or when the arbitrators shall have awarded upon some matter not submitted, or when it is imperfect in some matter of form not affecting the merits of the controversy. Section 858, R. S. 1894.
The evident purpose of the statute is to prevent an inquiry into the merits of the controversy after the award has been filed in court. The corrections or modifications of the award with...
To continue reading
Request your trial