City of Mobile v. Wood

• Decision Date: 11 February 1899
• Citation: 95 F. 537
• Parties: CITY OF MOBILE v. WOOD.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Alabama

95 F. 537

CITY OF MOBILE v. WOOD.

United States Circuit Court, S.D. Alabama.

February 11, 1899

B. B Boone and E. L. Russel, for complainant.

Bestor & Gray and R. H. Clarke, for defendant.

TOULMIN District Judge.

From my view of this case, it is unnecessary for me to consider the many points raised by the demurrer to the bill. One of the questions raised, and which I consider decisive of the case is whether the submission to arbitration, and the award thereunder mentioned in the bill, is binding on the defendant. It appears from the bill that the defendant Walter Wood, owns 54 28/100 interest in the Stein Waterworks that he did not concur in the appointment of the arbitrators, or consent to the submission, and that he has not, since the award are was made, accepted or ratified the same, but has repudiated the award, and refuses to be bound by it. The agreement set out in the bill, and the acts of the legislature of Alabama ratifying and confirming the same, vested Albert Stein, his executors, administrators, and assigns, with certain rights and privileges in the nature of a franchise for supplying water to the inhabitants of the city of Mobile, and provided for their procuring the necessary ground for the reservoir, engine, and pump house, and that through which the pipes should pass, and also that they should be vested with the absolute right and ownership to any land they may acquire for the purpose in the manner provided for in said act. It was also provided that Albert Stein had full power and authority to dispose of any and all of the said privileges, rights, immunities, etc., by deed or otherwise. It appears that the defendant has acquired, by assignment or otherwise, a large interest in the Stein Waterworks, whether they consist of the specified franchise alone, or of land and other tangible property as well. He is a joint or co-owner with the other owners of such property. Each in respect to the other is seised of the whole, but, for the purpose of alienation, forfeiture, and the like, he is seised only of his undivided part or proportion. 4 Kent, Comm. 377. An estate in a franchise and an estate in land rest upon the same principle. 3 Kent, comm. 573. Where there are several parties jointly interested in the same matter, those only who submit to an arbitration are bound by the award. One cannot bind the other by a submission, except by special authority. 2 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law (2d Ed.) p. 619, and note 1.

A submission to arbitration without the consent of all parties whose interests may be affected by the award is irregular and void. Gregory v. Trust Co., 36 F. 408. It is not claimed here that the defendant gave any special authority to any one to consent to the submission for him, but it is contented that Louis Stein, one of the defendant's co-owners, who was in the actual custody and management of the waterworks, consented to the submission, and appointed some of the arbitrators in it. The answer is that a general agent has no authority to submit to arbitration. Special authority for the particular...