Fuerst v. Eichberger
Decision Date | 17 December 1931 |
Docket Number | 1 Div. 698. |
Citation | 224 Ala. 31,138 So. 409 |
Parties | FUERST ET AL. v. EICHBERGER. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Baldwin County; F. W. Hare, Judge.
Bill by Joseph Eichberger against Mathew Fuerst and Mathew C. Fuerst to enforce an award in arbitration and to cancel conveyances for fraud. From a decree for complainant, respondents appeal.
Affirmed.
R. P Roach, of Mobile, for appellants.
Lloyd A. Magney, of Foley, for appellee.
The suit was to set aside a conveyance alleged to be fraudulent and to defeat a creditor who had judgment under the written award of arbitrators.
The subject of arbitration and awards under the statute and the common law are considered in section 6156 et seq., Code; Rhodes v. Folmar, 208 Ala. 595, 94 So. 745; Gardner v. Newman, 135 Ala. 522, 33 So. 179; Hoffman v. Milner, 142 Ala. 678, 38 So. 758; Wilbourn v. Hurt, 139 Ala. 557, 36 So. 768.
The concrete question for decision is thus stated by appellants' counsel:
The authorities establish:
(1) That . Section 6156, Code 1928.
(2) That a valid award of arbitrators, in substantial compliance with the statutory provisions governing arbitration and award, does not become a nullity because suit is brought thereon instead of delivery or filing of the award within the time prescribed with the clerk of the circuit court as provided by statute. Section 6161, Code.
(3) That an award of arbitrators which fails of statutory requirements and amounts to a valid common-law award is final and conclusive between the parties thereto and privies thereof. Gardner v. Newman, 135 Ala. 522, 33 So. 179; Shaw v. State, 125 Ala. 80, 84, 28 So. 390; Ehrman v. Stanfield, 80 Ala. 118, 122; Dudley v. Farris & McCurdy, 79 Ala. 187, 190.
(4) That a court has no authority, merely on motion, to enter up as its judgment, a common-law award, unless by the consent of the parties litigant solemnly given in judicio. Dudley v. Farris & McCurdy, supra; Byrd v. Odem, 9 Ala. 755, 766; Martin v. Chapman, 1 Ala. 278.
(5) That a common-law award may be made the basis of an appropriate action thereon. Lamar v. Nicholson et al., 7 Port. 158; 5 C.J. 236, § 645, note 84.
The several statutes touching the question of arbitration and award are to be considered as one system; and, when so regarded, the use of the word "must" in section 6157, Code, and the words "may" and "either party may" in sections 6161, 6170, Code, respectively, and the express declaration in section 6171, Code, that "arbitrations at common law not prevented," demonstrate the legislative intent to confer a privilege only, that was permissive by these terms employed, as in section 6161, Code, which declares that such award has the immediate effect of a judgment, under this and other statutes indicated or to be stated further. Wilbourn v. Hurt, 139 Ala. 557, 36 So. 768.
Common-law awards have been enforced by suits thereon. Odum v. Rutledge & Julian R. Co., 94 Ala. 488, 495, 10 So. 222; Graham v. Woodall, 86 Ala. 313, 314, 5 So. 687; Payne v. Crawford, 97 Ala. 604, 11 So. 725, and Anderson v. Miller, 108 Ala. 171, 19 So. 302, were actions at law on awards; and in Edmundson v. Wilson, 108 Ala. 118, 19 So. 367, and Black v. Woodruff, 193 Ala. 327, 69 So. 97, Ann. Cas. 1918C, 969, specific performance of an award was had or sought in equity; in Lamar v. Nicholson, 7 Port. 158, 166, there was the rendition of a judgment in the county court upon the return of an award of arbitrators; and Davis v. McConnell, 3 Stew. 492, a suit in the circuit court to judgment on an award of arbitrators.
And section 6169 of the Code is but declaratory of the common-law rule on the subject, that awards...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Honea v. Raymond James Fin. Servs., Inc.
... ... , or corruption in making it ,' and this Court has declared that this statute 'is but declaratory of the common-law rule on the subject.' Fuerst v. Eichberger , 224 Ala. 31, 33, 138 So. 409, 410 (1931). Thus, RJFS argues, courts reviewing arbitration awards under Alabama common law or statute ... ...
-
Southern Energy Homes, Inc. v. Lee
... ... 13. See Strickland et al., supra, note 3, at 81 ... 14. Fuerst v. Eichberger, 224 Ala. 31, 33, 138 So. 409, 410 (1931) (stating that "a court has no authority, merely on motion, to enter up as its judgment, a ... ...
-
International Ass'n of Machinists v. Central Airlines, Inc.
... ... Even at common law an award was valid and binding on the parties. Enforcement could be obtained by an action at law upon the award itself. Fuerst v. Eichberger, 1931, 224 Ala. 31, 138 So. 409. The award winner could sue in equity for specific performance. United Fuel Gas Co. v. Columbian Fuel ... ...
-
Alafabco, Inc. v. Citizens Bank
... ... Ala.Code 1975, 872 So.2d 801 § 6-6-16; Fuerst v. Eichberger, 224 Ala. 31, 33, 138 So. 409, 410 (1931); Rodney Max, "Arbitration—the Alternative to Timely, Costly Litigation," 42 Ala. Lawyer ... ...