Holdridge v. Stowell
| Decision Date | 12 November 1888 |
| Citation | 40 N.W. 259,39 Minn. 360 |
| Parties | HOLDRIDGE v STOWELL. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Syllabus by the Court.
Where parties to a controversy execute an agreement to submit it to arbitration, and it is clear that it was intended to be a statutory arbitration, but it is not valid as such, by reason of failing to comply with some essential requirement of the statute, it cannot have effect as a common-law submission.
It is essential, to a statutory submission to arbitration, that the agreement shall name all the arbitrators.
Appeal from district court, Ramsey county; BRILL, Judge.
Proceedings by E. A. Holdridge against Ida C. Stowell to set aside an award. The district court ordered the award vacated, and defendant appeals.
John D. O's Brien, for appellant.
Davis, Kellogg & Severance, for respondent.
The parties entered into an agreement in writing to submit a certain matter in difference between them to the arbitrament of two persons named, and such other person as might be chosen by those two. The agreement was in the form, (except as to the two arbitrators named choosing a third,) and was acknowledged in the manner, prescribed by statute. Chapter 89, Gen. St. 1878. The arbitrators had a hearing, and an award was signed by two, (one of those named in the agreement of submission not signing,) and filed with the clerk of the district court. All there is to show the selection of a third arbitrator is this award, signed by only one of the arbitrators. Holdridge, against whom the award was, moved the district court to vacate and set it aside on various grounds; among them, that it is invalid for the reason that the arbitrators were not chosen by the parties to the proceeding, and on this ground the district court made an order vacating it.
It is conceded that the agreement was not good as a statutory arbitration, for the reason that the arbitrators are not all named in it. See, also, Mining Co. v. Pratt, 101 Mass. 359. There is also no doubt that the district court, on the papers being filed, could determine that it was not good as a statutory arbitration, and therefore gave the arbitrators no jurisdiction to proceed upon it. Barney v. Flower, 27 Minn. 403,7 N. W. Rep. 823. Nor can there be any doubt that if not in conformity to the statute, so as to give the arbitrators jurisdiction, the court could reject the award, or, what would amount to the same thing, strike it from the files or set it aside. Strictly, the court could not (except in an ordinary action on the award, or one in which it is interposed as a defense) go further than to decide that the submission and award are not good under the statute. The district court has, however, apparently gone further than this, and decided that it is not good for any purpose, either under the statute or at common law. If the order that the award be “vacated” is to be taken in the sense of annulling it, so that it shall be of no effect whatever, then the court decided that it ought not to stand as an award on a common-law submission. As appears from the order and the memorandum filed by the court, such was the sense in which the court used the word; and the parties have accepted and acted on this as its meaning, for most of the argument here, both printed and oral, was devoted to the question whether, being invalid under the statute, the award may still be good as an award upon a submission at common law....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Park Const. Co. v. Independent School Dist. No. 32
...and the lawful nature of both means and end, it would be sheer caprice for us to nullify the whole preceeding. In Holdridge v. Stowell, 39 Minn. 360, 40 N.W. 259, it was held that where a controversy has been submitted to and it is clear that a statutory arbitration was the thing intended, ......
-
Independent School Dist. No. 35 v. A. Hedenberg & Co.
...Independent School Dist., 209 Minn. 182, 296 N.W. 475, had not been decided, and the decision law of this state based on Holdridge v. Stowell, 39 Minn. 360, 40 N.W. 259, was that an agreement to submit all future controversies under a contract to arbitrators was void as against public polic......
-
Knutson v. Lasher
...the arbitrators could not have made a valid award. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Cooper, 59 Minn. 290, 61 N.W. 143; Holdridge v. Stowell, 39 Minn. 360, 40 N.W. 259. In that situation, plaintiff would have had no choice of remedies. If he desired to enforce his rights, his only remedy woul......
-
Zelle v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co.
...a common-law arbitration, the parties themselves annulled their first agreement for a statutory proceeding. Insofar as Holdridge v. Stowell, 39 Minn. 360, 40 N.W. 259, held to the contrary, it was overruled by that 2. Arbitration has been looked upon with favor in this state both in the sta......