Koepke v. E. Liethen Grain Co.

• Decision Date: 12 May 1931
• Parties: KOEPKE ET AL. v. E. LIETHEN GRAIN CO.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

205 Wis. 75

236 N.W. 544

KOEPKE ET AL.

v.E. LIETHEN GRAIN CO.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

May 12, 1931.

Appeal from an order and judgment of the Circuit Court for Outagamie County; Edgar V. Werner, Circuit Judge.

Affirmed.

Proceedings to confirm an award of arbitrators and for judgment thereon, on motion of E. Liethen Grain Company. Counter motion by the Appleton Construction Company to vacate the award on the ground of partiality of the arbitrators and lack of due deliberation and judgment based on facts and evidence before them.

The court confirmed the award and ordered judgment thereon for the recovery by the Appleton Construction Company of $1,725.49, after allowing the E. Liethen Grain Company a deduction of $1,987 from a balance of $3,712.49 owing to the construction company under a contract for the erection of a building for the grain company. Judgment was entered accordingly, and the construction company appealed from the order and judgment, contending that the arbitrators and the court erred in holding that the grain company was entitled to the deduction of $1,987 for alleged incomplete and defective performance of the contract by the construction company. A prior award by the same arbitrators had been vacated and a rehearing ordered by the court, because of incomplete findings and insufficient execution of the document evidencing the award. At that time, the court also ordered the grain company to serve a bill of particulars specifying the defects and claims for damages because of which it sought a deduction from the contract price, and also ordered the same arbitrators to examine the buildings and hear proofs. Thereafter the bill of particulars was furnished, and the arbitrators received and reviewed the evidence previously submitted, heard additional proof offered by both parties, and reinspected the buildings. They were unanimous in making both awards.

Sigman & Sigman, of Appleton, for appellant.

Frank, Wheeler & Pelkey, of Appleton, for respondent.

FRITZ, J.

There is no controversy as to the validity of the agreement for arbitration, or the appointment of the arbitrators. A review of the evidence discloses that the trial court was warranted in finding that there was no corruption, fraud, undue means, partiality, or misconduct on their part in making the award; that they passed solely upon the matters submitted to them; that they were not mistaken in their findings; and that their findings sustained their award.

[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] No useful purpose will be served by a detailed discussion of the evidence. Due consideration and appreciation of the well-established principles applicable to valid arbitration proceedings virtually dispose of all of the grain company's contentions on this appeal. In Eau Claire v. Eau Claire Water Co., 137 Wis. 517, 119 N. W. 555, the following principles were recognized and applied: Every presumption is in favor of an award which is responsive to the submission and which is duly executed by the arbitrators. Invalidity must be shown, by any one asserting it, by clear and satisfactory evidence. All questions of judgment within the submission are concluded by the decision of the arbitrators, and are not subject to appeal or review by the court. On an attack on an award it is not within the province of the court to determine whether conflicting evidence before the board, on issues which it decided, constituted a preponderance for or against its decisions. Upon a submission without restrictions, the board has plenary power to decide questions of admissibility, competency, and weight of evidence. The arbitrators themselves are competent witnesses before the board, and they are not confined to testimony from witnesses under oath. Their selection by either party may be due to their expert knowledge, and they are not excluded from using such knowledge in making their award. In subsequent...