Dunham Lumber Co. v. Holt
| Decision Date | 30 June 1899 |
| Citation | 26 So. 663,123 Ala. 336 |
| Parties | DUNHAM LUMBER CO. v. HOLT ET AL. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from chancery court, Montgomery county; Jere N. Williams Chancellor.
Bill by the Dunham Lumber Company against W. C. Holt and others. From a decree dismissing the bill, complainant appeals. Reversed
The bill averred substantially the following facts: Holt claimed that the Dunham Lumber Company owed him over $2,000, and brought suit in the circuit court of Butler county (where the Dunham Lumber Company had its principal place of business) and, after pleas were filed, Holt and the lumber company agreed to arbitrate their differences, and went to Lester C Smith, an attorney selected by both parties, to whom they explained their differences and desires, and caused him to draw up articles of arbitration. The arbitration was had, and an award rendered in favor of Holt for about $1,500. Afterwards the lumber company attempted to petition for mandamus to compel the arbitrators to charge this defendant with an item for $6,185.82, which petition was heard by John R. Tyson, circuit judge, and denied. An appeal was taken to the supreme court, and this court held that under the submission the arbitrators had no right to consider this item. The award of the arbitrators was made the judgment of the circuit court, as provided by statute. Subsequently the lumber company renewed its attempt to have this item of $6,185.82 passed on by the arbitrators by making motion to quash the execution. This was heard by John R. Tyson, circuit judge, and by him the motion was denied. Again an appeal was taken to the supreme court, and again it reaffirmed its former position, and held that the arbitrator acted correctly, and should not have considered the items here complained of. After all this, the lumber company filed this bill of complaint, in which the main charges are that the arbitrators allowed Holt a verdict of $3,000 which the lumber company claims should not have been allowed, and refused to charge Holt with $6,185.82, which the lumber company claims should have been charged to Holt. The grounds upon which the right to relief is rested, as averred in the bill, are stated in the opinion. Upon the filing of the bill an injunction issued, restraining Holt from collecting the judgment on the award of the arbitrators. Holt then answered the bill denying all the material averments contained therein, and made motion to (1) discharge the injunction, (2) dissolve the injunction, and (3) to dismiss the bill for the want of equity. On the submission of the cause the chancellor rendered a decree sustaining the motion to dismiss the bill for the want of equity, dissolving the injunction, and ordering the bill dismissed. From this decree the complainant appeals, and assigns the rendition thereof as error.
J. C. Richardson, Horace Stringfellow, and Watts, Troy & Caffey, for appellant.
Graham & Steiner and Hugh Nelson, for appellees.
This is a bill, in one aspect, to set aside and annul a judgment entered upon a statutory award. The grounds upon which the right to the relief prayed in this connection is rested are stated in the tenth paragraph of the bill, as follows "That it was the agreement and intention of the complainant (the Dunham Lumber Company) and of the said W. C. Holt (the respondent) to submit every existing difference between them, equitable as well as legal, to the said board of arbitration, and that upon such agreement and understanding, and on account thereof, complainant agreed to submit existing differences to a board of arbitration, including the suit in the circuit court of Butler county; that the said suit was dismissed by the said W. C. Holt under said agreement and understanding; that, if the said articles of submission do not embrace the said $6,185.82 received by said Holt for or on account of the complainant, the omission to embrace the same therein was the unintentional mistake of the scrivener of said articles of submission, or it was the intentional omission and fraud of W. C. Holt; that W. C. Holt stated to the complainant at the time of signing said articles...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stewart v. Burgin
... ... respondent, that may be apportioned thereto in payment or ... reduction of the judgment. Dunham Libr. Co. v. Holt, ... 123 Ala. 336, 343, 26 So. 663; Id., 124 Ala. 181, 184, 27 So ... 556. The ... C. & D. R ... R. Co. v. Rhodes, 8 Ala. 206, and running down to Dunham ... Lumber Co. v. Holt, reported in 123 Ala. 336, 26 So. 663, and ... 124 Ala. 181, 27 So. 556. None of these ... ...
-
Commonwealth Life Ins. Co. v. Wilkinson
... ... Lester v ... Walker, 172 Ala. 104, 55 So. 619; Dunham Lbr. Co. v ... Holt, 123 Ala. 336, 26 So. 663; Terry v. Mutual Life ... Ins. Co., 116 Ala. 242, ... ...
-
Stout v. W.M. Garrard & Co.
...Dec. 255-56; Drew v. Drew, 33 Eng. L. & Eq. 9; Hewitt v. Leigh & H. R. Ry. Co., 42 A. 325-329, 6 So. 834, 5; Badders v. Davis; Lumber Co. v. Holt, 26 So. 663-4; Connor v. Simpson, 7 A. 161; Montague v. Smith, Miss. 396. We understand that counsel make the contention that it is necessary in ......
-
Bozeman v. J.B. Colt Co.
... ... admissible. Shepherd v. Butcher Tool & Hdw. Co., 198 ... Ala. 275, 73 So. 498; La. Lumber Co. v. Farrior, 9 Ala ... App. 383, 63 So. 788; Shannon & Co. v. McElroy, 3 ... Ala. App. 519, ... Case, ... supra; Coopers' Case, supra; Tillis v. Austin, ... 117 Ala. 262, 22 So. 975; Dunham Lumber Co. v. Holt, ... 123 Ala. 336, 26 So. 663) ... Defendant's plea 3 does not ... ...