Patton v. Garrett

• Decision Date: 30 April 1895
• Parties: PATTON v. GARRETT.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

21 S.E. 679

116 N.C. 847

PATTON v. GARRETT.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

April 30, 1895

Appeal from superior court, Buncombe county; McIver, Judge.

Action by T. W. Patton against Paul Garrett on a promissory note. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Where one of the parties executes his bond for the amount of an award in fulfillment of the agreement for arbitration, he is estopped to defend an action thereon on the ground that he executed it in ignorance of a mistake in the award, and of the fact that the award was reviewable by a court.

On the 13th of January, 1890, C. W. Garrett & Co. and Paul Garrett the defendant, entered into a contract by which the defendant was to sell for C. W. Garrett & Co., for a commission, their wines and brandies made at their Medoc Vineyards, in Halifax county. Afterwards, a disagreement having arisen between the parties concerning their rights and interests under the contract, they agreed to submit the matters in dispute to arbitration, the agreement being in the following words: "State of North Carolina Halifax County. This indenture, made this the ___ day of ___ 1891, between Lucy W. Garrett and H. S. Harrison and his wife, Mary S. Harrison, composing the firm of C. W. Garrett & Co., party of the first part, and Paul Garett, party of the second part, witnesseth: That whereas, certain matters of controversy have arisen between said parties, which are now in litigation in the superior court of Halifax county; and whereas, all the parties above named desire to avoid the delay, expense, and unfriendly relations which necessarily attend litigation, and that all such matters as are now in controversy shall be settled by arbitration; and whereas, the following are the questions in dispute and to be arbitrated to wit: First. What amount does Paul Garrett, trading as Garrett & Co., owe to C. W. Garrett & Co., for wines, brandies, and other merchandise sold and delivered? Second. What amount, if any, is Paul Garrett entitled to recover of C. W. Garrett & Co. for the alleged breach or breaches of contract which existed between said parties, a copy of which contract is hereto attached, and made a part of this instrument? Third. It is agreed that all matters pertaining to the business of Garrett & Co., as may be supposed by either party to influence his interest, may be considered in this arbitration, and that, in the event the arbitrators shall conclude that either party has been damaged by the course of the other, they shall decide the amount of such damages: Now, therefore, for the avoidance of litigation and for other purposes above indicated, the parties of this indenture hereby agree to submit all matters of controversy to Mr. John A. Collins, of Enfield, N. C., and Mr. William P. Simpson, of Wilson, N. C., and Mr. William P. Simpson, of Wilson, N. C., and to a third party to be selected by the said Collins and Simpson, as arbitrators. The award of any two of the arbitrators shall be final. In the event of an award of damages to either party, the amount may be arranged by note at six months for said amount, bearing interest at eight per cent., and with such security as the arbitrators may deem sufficient. It is further agreed that no evidence shall be considered by said arbitrators, except such as would be admissible in a court of law; and, in the event that either party shall wish to submit evidence which is objected to by the other party, the arbitrators shall pass on the question of admissibility. The place of meeting of the arbitrators shall be at the Medoc Vineyards, and the time for said arbitration shall be fixed by the arbitrators. That, at the meeting or meetings of the arbitrators, it is agreed that neither party shall be represented by legal counsel, but C. W. Garrett & Co. may be represented by T. W. Patton, and Paul Garrett may represent his own interests. The parties hereto do hereby bind themselves, their heirs, executors, and assigns, in the sum of five thousand dollars that they will abide by the award of the arbitrators. In testimony whereof, the parties above named have hereunto set their hands and seals, the day and year above mentioned." The arbitrators met at Medoc Vineyards on the 12th of November, 1891, the plaintiff representing C. W. Garrett & Co., and the defendant being present in person. The arbitrators, after hearing all the testimony offered on both sides, made the following award: "November 12, 1891. Whereas, certain matters of controversy between C. W. Garrett & Co. and Garrett & Co. have been referred to the undersigned, T. J. Hadley, J. A. Collins, and W. P. Simpson, and whereas we have this day met at Medoc, and carefully examined and weighed such evidence as was presented by parties to said controversy, do make the following award: First. We award that said Garrett & Co. pay to C. W. Garrett & Co. twenty-two hundred and sixty-nine dollars and fifty-five one hundredth dollars, as per account of C. W. Garrett & Co., admitted to be correct. Second. We award that C. W. Garrett & Co. pay to Garrett & Co. one hundred dollars and seventeen one hundredth dollars, being balance due Paul Garrett on book of C. W. Garrett & Co., per account rendered; and also that C. W. Garrett & Co. pay Garrett & Co. sixty-seven and sixty-one one hundredth dollars for sour wine and discount, the discount being half the amount charged against Paul Garrett, in account rendered against him by C. W. Garrett & Co. Third. We award that, whereas the contract between the parties was indefinite as to its duration, we adjudge it should mean to continue for twelve months; and whereas, by reason of a supposed sale of the Medoc property, for the failure of which sale Paul Garrett was in no way responsible, the contract was annulled before the expiration of twelve months, and the said Paul Garrett was deprived of the reasonable profits under said contract: Now, therefore, we adjudge that C. W. Garrett & Co. pay to said Paul Garrett eight hundred dollars as damages. Fourth. We award that Garrett & Co. execute to C. W. Garrett & Co. a note of even date herewith, bearing interest from date at 8% per annum, for $1,301.87, due six months from date, in full settlement of all claims between the parties to date. Fifth. We award that the matter of security to said note be left to be agreed upon between Paul Garrett and T. W. Patton, as agreed upon by these gentlemen now present. [Signed by the arbitrators.]"

The defendant, immediately upon the making of the award, and in pursuance of it, executed the bond upon which this action is based, which is as follows: "Six months after date, I promise to pay to the order of C. W. Garrett & Co. thirteen hundred and one and 87/100 dollars, this being the amount awarded in an arbitration held this day, with interest from date at 8% per annum. Witness my hand and seal, this the 12th day of November, 1891. [Signed and sealed by Paul Garrett.]" The bond was assigned and indorsed to Lucy W. Garrett, for the value, by C. W. Garrett & Co., and by her indorsed for value to the plaintiff. This action was brought to recover of the defendant the amount of the bond. The defendant set up as a defense all of the matters about which he had complained under his contract with C. W. Garrett & Co., and which were submitted to arbitration, and averred, further, that he had executed the bond immediately upon the rendition of the award, and in ignorance of any omission therein, and in further ignorance of the power of the court to review said award, and in ignorance of the erroneous construction of the law in regard to the contract, as set out in section 15 of this answer, and of his right in the premises." He then, in his answer, after denying that the plaintiff was the owner of the bond, averred other matters of defense, as follows: "(13) That, after delivering the note to the plaintiff, Patton, as agent of the said C. W. Garrett & Co., the defendant discovered that there was omitted from said award an account of this defendant (called Garrett & Co.) against said C. W. Garrett & Co., mainly for sour wines which had been taken back from customers on account of their defective quality, which on the hearing was admitted to be correct by the plaintiff, Patton, and which the said arbitrators were directed by him to allow. The said arbitrators inadvertently overlooked the same in making their calculations, and allowed defendant no credit therefor. Said account amounted to $241.60. As soon as defendant detected the omission, he called the attention of the said Patton to the same, and he then and there agreed that, if the arbitrators intended to allow the account, he would credit the same on said note; and he directed the defendant to see Messrs. Hadley & Simpson, who spent the...