Donaldson v. Buhlman

Citation114 N.W. 431,134 Wis. 117
PartiesDONALDSON ET AL. v. BUHLMAN.
Decision Date08 January 1908
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

On motion for rehearing. Overruled.

For former opinion, see 113 N. W. 638.

WINSLOW, C. J.

The appellant moves for a rehearing in this case on the ground that four independent questions were submitted to arbitration, and that a mere failure of the arbitrators to properly understand their duties as to one question should not invalidate their awards as to the other questions. It is fair to say that the contention that the award was severable was not made in the original brief, and the question as to the length of time to be allowed to the respondents to remove saw logs was naturally regarded as the most important question in the case; and hence the question whether the award on minor subjects might or should be allowed to stand was not considered nor did it suggest itself to our minds.

It is undoubtedly true that, where a number of questions severable in their nature are submitted to arbitration, the fact that the award upon one question is bad will not necessarily result in the setting aside of the award upon the other questions unless the same vice affects them all, or unless the void part is a consideration for the other parts, or so affects the other parts that it appears that they are naturally dependent upon each other. Russell on Arb. & Award (8th Ed.) p. 201; 2 A. & E. Ency. of Law, p. 741 et seq.; Darling v. Darling, 16 Wis. 644.

In the present case, however, the court below found that both the action of the arbitrators in practically cutting off the appellant's right to remove any timber and their action in allowing $75 damages were grossly unfair and unjust, and showed great prejudice and an utter lack of appreciation of their duties, and, further, that the entire award was made in bad faith. We are unable to say that these conclusions were not justified by the evidence; and hence the same vice affects the award on all the questions submitted. As we viewed the case upon the first hearing, we did not deem it necessary to consider the question of bad faith, inasmuch as it seemed that the failure of the arbitrators to know and comprehend their duty as to the main question was sufficient to affirm the entire judgment, and so the case was decided on the assumption that there might have been no bad faith, but it was not intended to decide that question. Now, that it seems necessary to decide it, we have no hesitation in saying that the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Joint School Dist. No. 10, City of Jefferson v. Jefferson Ed. Ass'n, 76-129
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • May 17, 1977
    ...75, 76-79, 236 N.W. 544 (1931); Travelers Ins. Co. v. Pierce Engine Co., 141 Wis. 103, 107, 108, 123 N.W. 643 (1909); Donaldson v. Buhlman, 134 Wis. 117, 119, 113 N.W. 638, 114 N.W. 431 (1908); Jones, Judicial Review of Arbitral Awards Common-Law Confusion & Statutory Clarification, 31 So.C......
  • Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission v. Teamsters Local No. 563
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • April 25, 1977
    ...or of law if within the submission.'); Decker v. Ladish-Stoppenback Co., 203 Wis. 285, 291--292, 234 N.W. 355 (1931); Donaldson v. Buhlman, 134 Wis. 117, 119, 113 N.W. 638, 114 N.W. 431 (1908); McCord v. Flynn, 111 Wis. 78, 88, 86 N.W. 668 (1901). See also Mogge v. District 8, I.A.M., 454 F......
  • Boomer Coal & Coke Co. v. Osenton
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • May 25, 1926
    ...469, 38 N.W. 446, 14 Am. St. Rep. 510; Everett v. Brown, 120 Misc. 349, 198 N.Y.S. 462; Donaldson v. Buhlman, 134 Wis. 117, 113 N.W. 638, 114 N.W. 431. Neither will an award be set for a mistake of law, where the strict rules of legal procedure were waived under the terms of the arbitration......
  • Boomer Coal & Coke Co v. Osenton
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • May 25, 1926
    ...W. 446, 14 Am. St. Rep. 510; Everett v. Brown, 120 Misc. Rep. 349, 198 N. Y. S. 462; Donaldson v. Buhlman, 134 Wis, 117, 113 N. W. 638, 114 N. W. 431. Neither will an award be set aside for a mistake of law, where the strict rules of legal procedure were waived under the terms of the arbitr......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT