Griggs v. Seeley

• Citation: 8 Ind. 244
• Parties: Griggs v. Seeley
• Decision Date: 05 December 1856
• Court: Supreme Court of Indiana

8 Ind. 244

Griggs v. Seeley

Supreme Court of Indiana

December 5, 1856

ERROR to the Vigo Circuit Court.

The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded with instructions to enter judgment for the plaintiff on the award.

C. W Barbour, for plaintiff ^[1].

A Kinney, for defendant ^[2].

Perkins J. Gookings, J., having been concerned as counsel below was absent.

OPINION

Perkins, J.

Debt by Griggs against Seeley upon an award, as follows:

"John Doe on the demise of William Merritt, Jonas Seeley and others v. Joseph Griggs. Recovery in ejectment in the Vigo Circuit Court, September term, 1848.

"Suggestion on the record and claim by the defendant for improvements under the statute concerning occupying claimants. We, the undersigned, having, by the consent of Joseph Griggs of the one part, and Jonas Seeley of the other part, been appointed, by the Court aforesaid, at the term and in the case aforesaid, arbitrators to settle certain matters of difference in said case referred to them, met and qualified according to law; and the said Griggs and Seeley being then before said arbitrators to submit their said cause to the hearing thereof, said Seeley and Griggs then and there before said arbitrators consented that they should decide on the rights and equities arising out of the recovery of said land in said ejectment and the claim aforesaid, without being governed by the statute in such case made and provided, and that they should award what sum the said Seeley should pay to said Griggs, or the said Griggs pay to the said Seeley, in the premises, up to the time of making our said award; and said Seeley and Griggs did then and there so submit their differences; and on the hearing of the evidence we award that the said Seeley shall pay to the said Griggs, on account of his improvements over and above rents, and profits, and damages by waste or cultivation, the sum of 141 dollars, and we submit the question of the taxation of costs to the Court. Witness our hands and seals this 17th day of November, 1848.

"Signed in presence of C. T. Noble, Jacob Jones [SEAL], Jacob Hess [SEAL], Thomas Carter [SEAL]."

The defendant denied the submission to arbitrators as alleged, but admitted that the cause of Doe on the demise, etc., on a claim for improvements, etc., had been referred, etc.

A jury was called to try the issues. Evidence was given. The defendant filed his demurrer to the evidence in the following words:

"Be it remembered, that on the trial of this cause the plaintiff proved by C. T. Noble, the subscribing witness, that the following instrument [here follows the award above set out] was executed and acknowledged in his presence, and that he signed it as subscribing witness. The award was given in evidence over the defendants' objection.

"Jacob Jones, the defendant excepting, testified that after himself and the arbitrators had been some days in the investigation of the matters mentioned in the forepart of the award in reference to the case of Doe on the demise of Seeley and others against Griggs, in which they had been more particularly considering the claim of Church Maddox against the same parties, the said Griggs and Seeley agreed before the arbitrators that the said referees need not be governed by the requisitions of the statute, but should decide upon such claim according to the equity of the case, without reference to the statute, and if in favor of said Griggs should say how much Seeley should pay Griggs, or if in favor of Seeley, how much Griggs should pay Seeley; and under this submission by Griggs and Seeley they proceeded and made the award in question. Being cross-examined, witness said that he believed the arbitrators commenced the examination of the claim of C. Maddox against the same parties for damages, and that they continued the examination of said case until said agreement above specified was made, and that all the other parties agreed to their cases being decided by the same rule. Witness further proved that there were other claims for improvements on other parts of the same land recovered by the same parties, and it was agreed by all that the evidence given in one case should apply to all the cases so far as the same was applicable to all.

"Salmon Wright proved that he was attorney for R. Pucket who claimed pay for the value of improvements on a part of the same land which had been recovered by Seeley and others; that after the arbitrators, (to whom the cases of Pucket and several other persons had been referred) had had the subject some days under consideration, he, witness, proposed to Seeley to let the arbitrators take the case of Pucket and decide it according to the equity of the case, without any reference to the statute, and say how much Pucket should pay Seeley or Seeley pay Pucket, and that afterwards, Griggs, Maddox, and other parties having claims referred as aforesaid, agreed that their causes should be decided upon the same terms. Said Wright being cross-examined, said, the several lessors of the plaintiff were represented on said trial before the arbitrators, by Kinney and Gookins, and Seeley was the only one of said lessors who was present in person; that there was no agreement to change...