Hooker v. Williamson

• Decision Date: 14 December 1883
• Docket Number: Case No. 1114.
• Citation: 60 Tex. 524
• Parties: S. T. HOOKER v. J. G. WILLIAMSON.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

60 Tex. 524

S. T. HOOKER

v.J. G. WILLIAMSON.

Case No. 1114.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Dec. 14, 1883.

APPEAL from Panola. Tried below before the Hon. A. J. Booty.

Suit brought by Hooker against Williamson to recover the amount awarded to him by arbitrators on a common law award.

Williamson, by his answer, asserted various objections and reconvened, setting up all the matters of difference between them growing out of the purchase and running of a farm together as partners.

Hooker, by supplemental petitions, after setting forth the agreement to arbitrate, and also the award, set up all the matters of diference growing out of the partnership.

To this Williamson demurred generally and specially; the ground of the special demurrer was that the award was void upon its face for the want of finality.

Upon the trial, the special demurrer was sustained, and the parties went to trial upon their pleadings, asserting the various items of account, credits, etc., as each claimed them to be. The court (the case being tried without a jury) rendered judgment for Williamson for the sum of $22.75 and costs.

Hooker filed a motion for new trial; also a motion to reform the judgment. On the hearing of the latter motion the court reformed the judgment by rendering the same against Hooker for $100.74, and at the same time overruled the motion for a new trial. Hooker appealed and assigned errors.

Drury Field, for appellant.

Robertson & Finley, for appellee.

WATTS, J. COM. APP.

It does not appear that appellant's exceptions to appellee's answer were ever called to the attention of the court, or that any action was had by the court with respect to the same. Then, under the settled rules of practice, these exceptions must be considered as waived.

The next objection to the judgment grows out of the ruling of the court sustaining exceptions to so much of the petition and amendments as set up the award as a basis for recovery.

The arbitrators appended to their award, and as part thereof, the following: “We agree to correct any error that may be discovered in this settlement.” It is claimed, and was so held by the court below, that this was a reservation of judicial authority to be exercised thereafter by the arbitrators, and that this rendered the award a nullity.

All the authorities concur that one of the essential requisites of a valid award is, that it must finally determine all the matters embraced in it, otherwise it is void. Wait's Actions and Defenses, vol. 5, p. 542.

It is said in Morse on Arbitration and Award: “An award will be bad for want of finality if it leaves any act of a judicial nature to be done in the future. It is matter of indifference whether such act is to be done by a party to the submission, by a stranger, or even by the arbitrators themselves. The award must, as a decision, be complete in every part and upon every point, and must be in this perfect shape once for all.”

It is said that an award is in the nature of a judgment, and that it must ascertain and decide as to the matters submitted, so as to conclude any...