Parsons v. Ambos

• Decision Date: 17 October 1904
• Citation: 48 S.E. 696,121 Ga. 98
• Parties: PARSONS v. AMBOS.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

48 S.E. 696

121 Ga. 98

PARSONS v. AMBOS.

Supreme Court of Georgia

October 17, 1904

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Agreements whereby the validity, and effect of a contract, or the rights of the parties, are submitted to arbitration, may operate to oust the courts of jurisdiction, and are so far contrary to public policy that the submission may be revoked at any time before the award.

2. But this rule does not prevent parties to a contract of sale from stipulating that the value of the property shall be appraised as a condition precedent to the right to sue for the purchase price.

3. Such stipulation is as to a mere incident not affecting the substance of the contract, and is irrevocable by the act of the parties.

4. A revocation of such common-law submission, however, results by implication of law, from the death of the umpire, or from the fact that an award actually made was set aside by a decree of a court of chancery.

5. Where the stipulation is revoked by operation of law, and the contract itself does not provide for a resubmission, the courts cannot impose such terms.

6. When, from the death of an umpire, or from a decree setting aside the appraisement, there is an implied revocation of a stipulation to submit the value of land to appraisers, rights of parties remain unaffected, and the contract cannot be rescinded by the acts of either party.

7. In an exchange of land it was stipulated that the value of the respective parcels should be fixed by appraisers. Their finding was set aside by decree. In the meantime the umpire died. One of the parties then notified the other that he revoked the submission and rescinded the contract, and demanded possession of the land. Upon the latter's refusal the former filed an equitable petition for ejectment and cancellation, and in the alternative prayed that the court would fix the value of the respective parcels and render judgment for the difference in the value of the two lots. Held that, in so far as it sought to recover the land and cancel the contract, the suit could not be maintained, but that the petition should have been retained for the purpose of having the court determine the difference in value of the two lots and render a money judgment accordingly.

Error from Superior Court, Chatham County; Geo. T. Cann, Judge.

Action by George Parsons against Henry Ambos. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed.

David C. Barrow, for plaintiff in error.

R. R Richards and Adams & Adams, for defendant in error.

LAMAR J.

In a contract for the exchange of land the parties agreed that each should be let into possession of the respective lots, and that the value should be immediately fixed by appraisers. Each party entered. One appraisement was had, and it was set aside by mutual consent. A second appraisement was attacked by bill in equity, and finally set aside by a decree at the instance of Parsons, the plaintiff in error. In the meantime the umpire died. Subsequently Parsons elected to revoke the submission and to rescind the contract, offering to surrender the land received by him, and demanding possession of the lot into which Ambos had been let. This demand having been refused, Parsons brought equitable ejectment, praying for rescission, for injunction against further action by the arbitrators, and, in the alternative, praying, if the court held he was not entitled to such relief, that a decree be entered fixing the value of the respective lots and adjusting the rights of the parties. This petition was met by a demurrer which raises the question as to whether the contract amounted to an agreement to oust the courts of jurisdiction, whether the agreement to submit to appraisers was revocable at the election of Parsons, and, if not, whether the same was not revoked as matter of law, in view of the death of the umpire and the fact that the previous finding had been set aside by a decree.

Courts favor the submission of controversies to speedy and inexpensive tribunals of the parties' own selection, and generally, in the absence of fraud or palpable mistake, will not interfere with their findings, even though a verdict of a jury to the same effect might be set aside as contrary to law. But the underlying reason for the recognition of the award is found in the fact that the parties not only agreed to submit their differences, but voluntarily permitted the agreement to be executed, and consented for the award to be actually made by judges of their own selection. The mere executory agreement to submit is generally revocable otherwise nothing would be easier than for the more astute party to oust the courts of jurisdiction. By first making the contract, and then declaring who should construe it, the strong could oppress the weak, and in effect so nullify the law as to secure the enforcement of contracts usurious, illegal, immoral, or contrary to public policy. Civ. Code 1895, § 3668. A common-law agreement, therefore, to submit the validity and effect of a contract, or to submit all matters in dispute, to arbitration, may be revoked by either party at...