Jones v. Brown

• Decision Date: 16 June 1880
• Citation: 6 N.W. 140,54 Iowa 74
• Parties: JONES v. BROWN ET AL
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

6 N.W. 140

54 Iowa 74

JONES v. BROWN ET AL

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

June 16, 1880

Appeal from Superior Court of Cedar Rapids.

THE defendants N. B. Brown and William Harper, having certain differences, selected O. C. T. Jones, the plaintiff herein one U.S. Taylor and J. H. Camburn as arbitrators, to settle said differences, make an award and report the same for judgment thereon, to the Linn District Court. The defendants Brown and Harper, as principals, and the other defendants as sureties, entered into a bond in the penal sum of $ 1,000, by which they bound themselves to pay to said arbitrators, as compensation for their services, the sum of ten dollars each per day, at the conclusion of said arbitration, and when said arbitrators should be ready to submit their award to said court, "or sooner if through any means said arbitration should be terminated." But payment in no case was to be delayed beyond March 1, 1879.

This action was brought upon said bond. Plaintiff avers that between the 17th of December, 1878, and April 1, 1879, he rendered services as such arbitrator for the period of twenty-four days, and in October, 1879, the said arbitrators submitted and filed in the said District Court their award in writing, and that defendants are indebted to him in the sum of $ 240 for said services, for which he asks judgment.

The defendant N. B. Brown answered the petition, and also set up counter-claims or cross-demands in two divisions; in the first of which he claimed of the plaintiff $ 500 damages. The substance of this claim was that, during the time said arbitration was pending before said plaintiff and the other arbitrators, the said plaintiff and said Camburn conspired together corruptly to wrong and defraud said Brown, in the matter of making, signing and filing said award. The fraudulent and corrupt acts charged were that said arbitrators made an award of $ 41,000 in favor of said Harper, and against said Brown, before the evidence was all submitted to them, and without giving said Brown time or opportunity to do so, and after an adjournment had been had to meet again, and complete the taking of the evidence; that no meeting was had, and no further evidence received, and that the plaintiff and said Camburn corruptly, disregarding the rights of Brown, made said award without the knowledge of Brown, and without the concurrence of Taylor, the other arbitrator, and without a regular or legal meeting as a board of arbitration, and that said acts were fraudulently and corruptly done, in order to aid said Harper to obtain an illegal and unfair award; that, by reason of said wrongful acts of plaintiff and said Camburn, the District Court re-committed said matters of arbitration to said arbitrators that they might hear the same anew.

In the second counter-claim it was averred that an appeal was taken from said order of re-submission, and said order was superseded, and the said arbitrators by the proper writ were commanded to proceed no further with the matter of said award; that the said arbitrators willfully, corruptly and fraudulently, disregarding the commands of said writ proceeded to act, and without hearing said matter of arbitration anew filed another award finding that said Brown was indebted to said Harper in the said sum of $ 41,000; that said second award was made in the absence of said Brown, and without affording him an opportunity to properly present his testimony, or be legally heard; that he procured a writ of injunction to be served upon said arbitrators, commanding them to refrain from further proceeding in said matter, and that said arbitrators disregarded the same, and corruptly and fraudulently proceeded to make, sign, and file the last mentioned award.

It was averred that by reason of said corrupt and fraudulent acts the said Brown was put to great expense, trouble and loss of time, in all to his damage in the sum of one thousand dollars, for which he prayed judgment.

There was a demurrer to the answer, and also to the counter-claims. The demurrer so far as it applied to the answer was overruled, and as applied to the counter-claims it was sustained. The defendant excepted and appeals.

AFFIRMED.

Rickel, West and Eastman, for appellant.

Mills & Keeler, for appellee.

OPINION

ROTHROCK, J.

I.

The demurrer having been overruled as to the answer in defense of the plaintiff's action, and sustained as to the counter-claims, the questions presented are to be considered in the same light as though the defendant was plaintiff in an action seeking to recover damages of Jones, one of the arbitrators, for the alleged corrupt and fraudulent acts set forth in the counter-claims. It will be observed that the defendant first claims damages for the alleged corrupt acts and practices of which the plaintiff was guilty during the hearing before the arbitrators, and up to the filing of the award in the District Court. One of the grounds of the demurrer is that the arbitrators were acting as a court, and in a judicial capacity, in hearing and determining the matters of difference between Brown and Harper, and that, having jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the persons interested in the investigation, they cannot be held civilly liable even though it be alleged that they acted fraudulently and corruptly. To this question counsel have mainly directed their arguments.

Before proceeding to a disposition of the main question one or two considerations of minor importance demand attention. Counsel for appellant insists as the arbitrators adjourned, and without again meeting made up their award, they acted in a mere...