Eisenmeyer v. Sauter
| Decision Date | 30 June 1875 |
| Citation | 1875 WL 8352,77 Ill. 515 |
| Parties | ANDREW J. EISENMEYERv.JOHN SAUTER. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Clinton county; the Hon. AMOS WATTS, Judge, presiding.
This was a bill in equity, by John Sauter against Andrew J. Eisenmeyer, to correct a mistake in the award of arbitrators. The opinion of the court states the facts of the case. The deposition of one of the arbitrators, taken before the master and reported by him, was not signed by the witness. The court below reformed the award, and decreed payment of the sum found to be due the complainant on the same as corrected, from which decree the defendant appealed. Mr. A. H. WHITE, for the appellant.
Mr. G. VAN HOOREBEKE, for the appellee.
This bill was to correct a mistake in an award. Complainant and defendant had been partners in the milling business. In 1869, by mutual agreement, the firm was dissolved. By an arrangement agreed upon, defendant was to collect all debts due the firm, and, after discharging the liabilities of the concern, was to account to complainant for his just share. Pending an action to settle the accounts between the parties, they referred all matters in dispute between them to the arbitrament of arbitrators mutually chosen, and thereupon the suit was dismissed.
The agreement to arbitrate was in writing, and the award, when made, was to be final and conclusive upon the parties thereto as to all matters submitted. An award was subsequently made in writing, but the bill is framed on the theory a mistake occurred in the award: that the arbitrators, among other things, allowed complainant but $1500 in money, when in fact, they intended to allow him $2700. Subsequently, the arbitrators, by a second and third award, attempted to correct the alleged mistake, but it is not insisted their action is binding on defendant.
Although the submission to arbitration may not have been in conformity with the provisions of the statute on that subject, the award for that reason was not invalid. It may be true, no judgment could have been rendered upon it under the statute, but it was good at common law, and the parties could maintain their independent action upon it. Low v. Nolte, 15 Ill. 368; Weinz v. Dopler, 17 Ill. 111.
There is no doubt of the power of a court of equity to correct a mistake in an award where it is the mutual mistake of all the arbitrators. The award is sometimes treated as the judgment of a tribunal of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Oregon-Washington R. & Nav. Co. v. Spokane, P. & S. Ry. Co.
...is not the result intended by the arbitrators, and does not express their real judgment. Buys v. Eberhardt, 3 Mich. 524; Eisenmeyer v. Sauter, 77 Ill. 515, 517; Boston Water Power Co. v. Gray, 6 Metc. (Mass.) 168, 169; Barrows v. Sweet, 143 Mass. 316, 9 N.E. 665; Consolidated Co. v. Nash, 1......
-
CPM Productions, Inc. v. Mobb Deep, Inc.
...and explaining that where these formalities were not met, "the parties must be left to their common law remedies"); Eisenmeyer v. Sauter, 77 Ill. 515, 516 (1875) (holding that strict compliance with arbitration statute is necessary for circuit court to obtain the necessary jurisdiction to e......
-
Casstevens v. Casstevens
...would render it voidable, would be binding upon the parties who signed the agreement as a common-law submission to arbitration. Eisenmeyer v. Sauter, 77 Ill. 515;Phelps v. Dolan, 75 Ill. 90;Smith v. Douglass, 16 Ill. 34; 2 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law (2d Ed.) 540. The evidence as to what these ......
-
Aultman v. Joy
...§ 30; Keefer v. Wood, 36 Ill. 406. The deposition and all its parts must be signed by the witness: Rev. Stat. Chap. 51, § 30; Eisenmeyer v. Sauter, 77 Ill. 515. When a bill of sale of personal property sold is made, it is the only evidence of such sale: Dunn v. Hewett, 2 Denio, 637. Content......