Levin v. Northwestern Nat. Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 03 July 1906
• Docket Number: 415.
• Citation: 146 F. 76
• Parties: LEVIN v. NORTHWESTERN NAT. INS. CO.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

146 F. 76

LEVIN v. NORTHWESTERN NAT. INS. CO.

No. 415.

United States Circuit Court, N.D. Iowa, Western Division.

July 3, 1906

Henderson & Fribourg, for plaintiff.

Carr Hewitt, Parker & Wright and Robinson & Lynch, for defendant.

REED District Judge (after stating the facts).

Whether or not an award of arbitrators may be successfully assailed in a court of law is a question upon which there is some confusion in the authorities. This arises mainly, if not wholly, from the fact that under the reformed procedure awards have been defeated upon equitable grounds in law actions; but this is because equitable defenses are permissible in such actions under the Code. Any defense however, to an action upon the award or answer setting up the same, that goes to the jurisdiction of the arbitrators, or that appears upon the face of the award, is available at law to defeat the same; but at common law it seems that matters extrinsic the award, such as fraud, mistake, or misconduct of the arbitrators, cannot be set up to defeat the same, and redress in such cases must be sought by direct proceedings in equity. This appears to be upon the theory that an award of arbitrators is analogous to a judgment, the arbitrators being a tribunal selected by the parties to adjudge their disputes (Gordon v. United States, 7 Wall. 188-194, 19 L.Ed. 35; Burchell v. Marsh, 17 How. 344, 15 L.Ed. 96), which is final as between the parties (Burchell v. Marsh, supra; Burroughs v. David, 7 Iowa, 154; Thornton v McCormick, 75 Iowa, 285-289, 39 N.W. 502; Emmet v. Hoyt, 17 Wend. (N.Y.) 410; Underhill v. Van Cortlandt, 2 Johns.Ch. (N.Y.) 366). While it has long been settled that courts of law have concurrent jurisdiction with courts of equity in matters of fraud (Swayze v. Burke, 12 Pet. 11, 9 L.Ed. 980; Smith v. McIver, 9 Wheat. 532, 6 L.Ed. 152), yet in the national courts, where legal and equitable remedies cannot be blended in one proceeding, it is generally held that relief against awards or other instruments in writing importing a consideration, upon the grounds of fraud, which does not touch the execution of the instrument, must be obtained in equity (Hartshorn v. Day, 19 How. 211-222, 15 L.Ed. 605; George v. Tate, 102 U.S. 564, 26 L.Ed. 232; Wood v. Railway Co. (C.C.) 39 F. 52).

In Hartshorn v. Day, supra, it is said:

'The general rule is that in an action upon a sealed instrument in a court of law failure of consideration or fraud in the consideration, for the purpose of avoiding the obligation, is not admissible as between the parties. * * * Fraud in the execution of the instrument has always been admitted in a court of law, as where it has been misread, or some other fraud or imposition has been practised upon the party in procuring his signature and seal. The fraud in this aspect does to the question whether or not the instrument ever had any legal existence. It is said that fraud vitiates all contracts and even records, which is doubtless true in a general sense. But it must be reached in some regular and authoritative mode. * * * A record of judgment may be avoided for fraud, but not between the parties or privies in a court of law.'

In George v. Tate, 102 U.S. 564, 26 L.Ed. 232, it is said:

'Proof of fraudulent representations beyond the recitals of the bond, to induce its execution by the plaintiff in error, was properly rejected. It is well

...