Leslie v. Leslie

• Decision Date: 31 March 1894
• Citation: 52 N.J.E. 332,31 A. 724
• Parties: LESLIE v. LESLIE.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

31 A. 724

52 N.J.E. 332

LESLIE

v. LESLIE.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

March Term, 1894.

Appeal from court of chancery.

Bill by Edward Leslie against John S. Leslie to set aside an award by arbitrators. From a decree for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

For report overruling demurrer to bill, see 24 Atl. 319; and for report on motion to strike out part of answer, see 24 Atl. 1029.

On appeal from a decree advised by Vice Chancellor VAN FLEET, who filed the following conclusions:

"The legal questions involved in this case have already been considered and decided. In disposing of the demurrer filed to the bill, it was held that the award shows, on its face, that it is fatally uncertain and inconclusive, and also that, on a comparison of the award with the arbitration agreement, it appears that the arbitrators exceeded their authority, and made an award in respect to matters not submitted to them. Leslie v. Leslie, 50 N. J. Eq. 103, 24 Atl. 319. To complainant's case, standing in this position, the defendant makes two defenses: First, that the complainant, after he had seen the award and fully understood what it contained, assented to its execution, and should therefore be adjudged to have estopped himself from disputing its validity; and, second, that the complainant was responsible for the arbitrators having exceeded their jurisdiction, the averment in that regard being that the complainant appeared before the arbitrators, and admitted that he was indebted to the defendant in the sum of $3,000, and agreed that the arbitrators should take this debt into consideration in making their award, and direct how it should be paid or discharged. The precise form in which these defenses are alleged appears in an opinion written on a motion to strike out parts of the defendant's answer, reported in 50 N. J. Eq. 155, 24 Atl. 1029.

"The burden of proof is on the defendant. Unless the evidence in support of the defense preponderates in the defendant's favor, he cannot prevail, and a decree must go in favor of the complainant. The case is destitute of the least proof in support of the first defense. There is not only no evidence going to show that the complainant assented to the execution of the award, but, on the contrary, it is shown by the evidence of every witness giving testimony on the subject that, from the moment he knew what the award contained, every word he uttered and every act he did plainly indicated that he was dissatisfied with it, and did not intend to abide by it The award was made by two arbitrators, one chosen by the complainant and the other by the defendant. Within two or three hours after the complainant had read the award, it is proved that he charged the arbitrator he had selected with having been improperly influenced by his associate, and stated that he was not done with the matter; he had plenty of money,—obviously meaning that he meant to try to undo, by litigation, the wrong which he believed had been committed against him. The arbitrator chosen by the defendant stated, while on the witness stand, that the complainant had said to him, within less than four hours after the publication of the award, that he had pulled the wool nicely over the eyes of the other arbitrator. He also testified that he had tried to persuade the complainant to abide by the award by accepting a check for $7,700 and some other papers tendered in execution of the award, but that the complainant promptly and offensively refused to receive them. It is also shown by the decided weight of the evidence that when the arbitrator chosen by the defendant said to the complainant, within less than three hours after the publication of the award, that he had better be satisfied with the award, the complainant instantly replied, in the hearing of the defendant, that he would never be satisfied with it. The fact is that there is not a speck of evidence supporting the defense of assent. On the contrary, all the evidence in the case shows plainly that the complainant, both by conduct and speech, from the moment he knew what the award contained, manifested, in the most unmistakable manner, strong dissatisfaction with it, and that he would not perform it, nor allow it to be performed, if he could prevent it. The complainant undoubtedly believed that the award did him great injustice, and his conduct, from the moment he knew what the award contained, throughout evinced strong dissatisfaction and a deep sense of wrong.

"Nor is the other defense proved. The arbitrators strayed beyond their jurisdiction, in this: They attempted to determine in what amount the complainant was indebted to the defendant, and also in what amount the complainant was indebted to the Leslie Brothers Manufacturing Company, when, in fact, neither of these matters had been submitted to them. Indeed, the Leslie Brothers Manufacturing Company was not a party to the arbitration agreement, and consequently could neither be heard by the arbitrators nor bound by...