Edmundson v. Wilson
Decision Date | 15 January 1896 |
Citation | 19 So. 367,108 Ala. 118 |
Parties | EDMUNDSON v. WILSON. |
Court | Alabama 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: The award which the complaint alleged was rendered by the arbitrators on August 10, 1891, was as follows: (Signed.) 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.
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-
City of St. Charles v. Stookey
... ... 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
...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
...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.
...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......