Goddard v. King

• Decision Date: 11 February 1889
• Citation: 40 Minn. 164
• Parties: THOMAS P. I. GODDARD and others <I>vs.</I> JAMES KING.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

40 Minn. 164

THOMAS P. I. GODDARD and others vs. JAMES KING.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

February 11, 1889.

Appeal by plaintiffs from an order of the district court for Ramsey county, Brill, J., presiding, refusing a new trial after a trial by the court. The valuation made by the appraisers was $30,000. The court found the property to have been worth $50,000 at the date of the valuation.

McMillan & Beals, for appellants.

O'Brien & O'Brien and Chas. E. & A. G. Otis, for respondent.

GILFILLAN, C. J.

The plaintiffs leased, September 28, 1881, to the defendant, certain land in the city of St. Paul for the term of 40 years from that date, at the yearly rent of $1,000 for the first five years; for the second and for each succeeding period of five years (if the parties should not be able to agree on the yearly rent) the yearly rent, it was agreed, should be fixed by two referees, — one to be chosen by each of the parties, — and, if the two referees could not agree, they were to choose a third, and the award of any two of the three referees was to be binding and conclusive between the parties. It was agreed that to fix the amount of rent the referees should first appraise the value of the premises exclusive of improvements made by defendant, and should take 5 per cent. of such appraised value as the yearly rent of the premises for the ensuing five years. The first period of five years having expired, the parties selected each a referee, and the two, not being able to agree concerning the rent, selected a third, and two of the referees made an award (the other refusing to sign it) in which they appraised the value of the property at $30,000, and fixed the rent at $1,500 per year for the second five years. The award is certainly regular upon its face. The action is to set aside the award. Several grounds on which it is claimed it should be set aside are set forth in the complaint. Except as touching one of these, the allegations of fact are negatived by the court below in its findings. One of them is alleged thus: "And neither of said arbitrators in so making said award in fact ever appraised or undertook or attempted to appraise the value of said real estate, exclusive of buildings, but in and by their said award sought to and did fix a low rent for said term, and less than that called for by said lease, to and for the sole advantage of said defendant, and for the purpose of giving such advantage to said defendant, and in fraud of the rights of plaintiffs under said lease." This is the only allegation in the complaint amounting to anything like a charge of fraud on the part of the arbitrators, or even to an allegation that they made a mistake of fact or law. The only finding of fact that can be referred to in support of this allegation is that the value of the real estate on September 28, 1886, the date as to which the value was to be appraised, was $50,000, exclusive of the buildings. The difference between the value as appraised by the referees and as found by the court, though great, is not, of itself, a reason for setting aside the award. That award is presumed, unless fraud or mistake is shown, to be the result of the honest exercise of their judgment by the referees. The court, in its findings, negatives any allegations of fraud or mistake, if the complaint may be construed to make any. The parties bound themselves to abide by the judgment of the referees. The award upon such a reference (it being equivalent to a common-law arbitration) cannot be avoided on the ground merely that the decision of the referees is erroneous. And on the facts as found the most that can be said against the award is that the referees erred in their opinion as to the value.

But the appellants claim that the court below erred "in finding the allegations of fraud upon the part of the two referees making the award, as charged in the complaint, not to be true." The only evidence aside from the award itself, and that as to the actual value of the land, that can be referred to in support of...