Edmundson v. Wilson

Decision Date15 January 1896
Citation19 So. 367,108 Ala. 118
PartiesEDMUNDSON v. WILSON.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Appeal from chancery court, Limestone county; Thomas Cobbs Chancellor.

Bill by Thomas P. Wilson against Ezra L. Edmundson to enforce the specific performance of an award rendered by arbitrators under an agreement between complainant and defendant to submit their partnership transactions and disputes arising therefrom to such arbitrators. From a judgment and decree for complainant, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

The bill averred that the complainant and the defendant had been partners in business, and that disputes and questions in reference to their partnership transactions having arisen they agreed to submit these questions to certain arbitrators that in obedience to said agreement, the transactions and the disputes between them were submitted to the arbitrators selected, and a final award was rendered by them on August 10, 1891, which the defendant declined to abide by. The agreement to arbitrate was as follows: "Articles of Agreement between Edmundson & Wilson and also Edmundson Eubanks & Wilson. It is mutually agreed between said Edmundson & Wilson that we select as arbitrators W. B. Vaughan, R. J. Hardy and A. P. Brown to take the books and accounts and all unsettled accounts and outstanding debts of whatever nature between said Edmundson & Wilson and also Edmundson, Eubanks & Wilson and make a just and equitable settlement of the same, after being duly sworn; and we, each of us bind ourselves, our heirs and assigns, forever to stand to and abide by the decision rendered by said arbitrators be what that may, in testimony whereof we have hereunto set our hands and seals this the 21st day of July, 1891." The award which the complaint alleged was rendered by the arbitrators on August 10, 1891, was as follows: "Exhibit B. Award of the Arbitrators in the Case of Edmundson and Wilson and Eubanks, the Arbitrators W. B. Vaughan, R. J. Hardy and A. P. Brown. After being duly sworn, we, the arbitrators, after having carefully examined all books, accounts, papers and statements of said firm, find E. L. Edmundson justly indebted to T. P. Wilson in the sum of four hundred and sixty-one dollars and forty cents, with interest from date of dissolution of their partnership at six per cent. interest, this being the full amount due him on settlement of farm and store books. Said Wilson is to have all accounts uncollected upon said books and said E. L. Edmundson is to pay all indebtedness of said firm of every kind and nature. Also said Wilson is to hold one-half interest in the storehouse at Bethel, Tennessee, known as 'Edmundson & Wilson storehouse.' Also said Wilson is to have one-half interest in the partnership tract of land known as the 'Coleman place,' consisting of eighty acres, more or less, situated in Limestone county, Alabama, joining the Grisby farm, unless said E. L. Edmundson will pay said T. P. Wilson the sum of five hundred dollars with interest at eight per cent., from Jan. 1, 1891, for said T. P. Wilson's half interest in said land, in which case said E. L. Edmundson will hold the entire farm. But, if said E. L. Edmundson fail to pay the above five hundred dollars with interest, then the said E. L. Edmundson shall make said T. P. Wilson a deed to one-half interest in said farm. And it is further agreed that the expenses of the arbitration be equally divided between them, said E. L. Edmundson and T. P. Wilson, also said E. L. Edmundson is to make said T. P. Wilson a deed to one-half interest in said storehouse. And we, the arbitrators, charge for services seven dollars and fifty cents. In testimony whereof we have hereunto set our hands and seals this August 10, 1891." (Signed.) "A. P. Brown. W. B. Vaughan. R. J. Hardy." The respondent in his answer denied that the award sought to be enforced by the complainant and alleged to have been rendered on August 10, 1891, was the final award of the arbitrators; but alleged that it was stated by the arbitrators at the time of making said award, that some errors had been committed therein, and that they would meet again and have them corrected; and that on August 19, 1891, they rendered a final award which was different from that alleged by the complainant to have been rendered on August 10, 1891.

W. T. Sanders and T. M. N. Jones, for appellant.

R. A. McClellan, for appellee.

HARALSON J.

The agreement to arbitrate related to the settlement of partnership transactions between the appellant and the appellee, carried on partly in Alabama and partly in Tennessee, the appellee being a resident of Alabama, and the appellant, of Tennessee. The submission was of matters in dispute, not involved in any pending litigation, settlement of which is provided for by arbitration under section 3222 of the Code; and the submission was entered into in writing duly signed by the parties in interest, fully in accordance with said section of the Code. The business of the partnership was carried on as stated, a part of the partnership property being at the time in each state. It was competent for the parties to include all their differences in one submission whether the transactions out of which they grew arose in the one or the other state, and have them definitely and finally settled between them. An award under a submission of the kind, if legally made, would be binding everywhere between the parties, as to the matters submitted for settlement. When made in conformity to the laws of this state, it would certainly conclude them here. The chancery court had authority over the subject-matter involved, and it had jurisdiction of the person of the appellant, defendant below, by personal service on him, and there was no jurisdictional obstacle intervening to prevent an adjudication of the matters the bill was filed to settle. The time and place of meeting of the arbitrators, whether in the one state or the other, under the circumstances of this case, was within their discretion. There is no pretense of an abuse of their discretion in this regard, and no objection was raised as to the conveniences of time or place. The parties appeared, and the fact that the sitting occurred at the storehouse in which a part of the partnership...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • City of St. Charles v. Stookey
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • June 11, 1907
    ... ... subsequently modify, revoke, or annul it, or make a new award ... upon the same issues. 1 Am. & Eng.Enc.Law, 689; Edmundson ... v. Wilson, 19 So. 367, 369, 108 Ala. 118; Flannery ... v. Sahagian, 31 N.E. 319, 134 N.Y. 85. The final ... estimate of January 5, 1903, ... ...
  • School District No. 1 v. Howard
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • December 10, 1935
    ...Pippy v. Winslow, (Ore.) 125 P. 298; City v. Stookey, 154 F. 772 (8th Cir.); Granette Company v. Newmann, (Iowa) 221 N.W. 197; Edmundson v. Wilson, 108 Ala. 118; Johnston v. Dunn, 19 L. R. A. (N. S.) Ashland Company v. Shore, (Wis.) 81 N.W. 136; Chicago R. R. Company v. Price, 11 S.Ct. 290;......
  • Fuerst v. Eichberger
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • December 17, 1931
    ...as to the matter submitted and its conclusion upon the parties and privies under the statute and under the common law. Edmundson v. Wilson, 108 Ala. 118, 19 So. 367; Wilbourn v. Hurt, 139 Ala. 557, 36 So. Callier v. Watley, 120 Ala. 38, 23 So. 796; Brewer v. Bain, 60 Ala. 159; 2 Am. & Eng. ......
  • Lanier v. Old Republic Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama
    • August 12, 1996
    ...and Chattawood Insurance is not inconsistent with a remand for clarification. They refer to the 100-year-old case of Edmundson v. Wilson, 19 So. 367 (Ala.1896), for the proposition that, under the AAA, an arbitration panel is powerless to modify its award once the award is final.18 In Edmun......
  • 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