Brown v. Harness
| Decision Date | 27 November 1894 |
| Citation | 11 Ind.App. 426,38 N.E. 1098 |
| Parties | BROWN v. HARNESS. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from circuit court, Howard county; L. J. Kirkpatrick, Judge.
Action by James T. Brown against Lewis W. Harness on an award of arbitrators. Defendant's motion to strike out the exceptions filed by plaintiff was granted as to all but the first, and plaintiff appeals. Defendant assigns as cross error the overruling of his motion as to the first. Affirmed.
Blacklidge, Shirley & Moon, for appellant. Bell & 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 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, Ind., on the 15th day of April, 1892; that in the addition and calculation of figures and the matter 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, while 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 elected 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. Rev. St. 1894, § 857 (Rev. St. 1881, § 845). The law, however, will permit a correction or modification of the award when there is an evident...
To continue reading
Request your trial