Sharpe v. King
| Decision Date | 31 December 1844 |
| Citation | 3 Ired.Eq. 402,38 N.C. 402 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | EZRA A. SHARPE v. JOEL B. KING. |
It is a rule in Equity, on the subject of injunctions, that, where, by the answer, the plaintiff's whole equity is denied, and the statement in the answer is credible, and exhibits no attempt to evade the material charges of the bill, the injunction will be dissolved.
Where a party referred matters in contest between himself and another to arbitration, and, after the award was made, he had full time and opportunity to examine it, and then gave his bond for the amount awarded against him, he cannot afterwards have relief upon the ground of errors in the award. Equity is no more bound to take care of those, who can take care of themselves and will not, than is a court of law.
The case of Moore v. Hylton, 1 Dev. Eq. 429, cited and approved.
Appeal from an interlocutory decree of the Court of Equity of Iredell county, at the Fall Term, 1844, his Honor Judge MANLY presiding, ordering the injunction heretofore granted in this case to be dissolved.
The matters contained in the bill of injunction and the answer thereto are stated in the opinion delivered in this Court.
Alexander, Boyden and Iredell for the plaintiff .
Osborne and J. H. Bryan for the defendant .
The plaintiff in his bill charges, that a copartnership existed between himself and the defendant, and that, having closed their business, they agreed to select two individuals to settle and adjust their accounts, agreeing to abide by their award; that, accordingly, a Mr. Sharpe and a Mr. Cowan were selected as the arbitrators, to whom all matters in dispute were submitted; that the arbitrators proceeded to the discharge of their duties, and in due time made up their award, to which he objected, and it was by him and the defendant referred back to the same individuals, who again examined the accounts, and made another award, based upon the first. And upon the return of this last judgment of the arbitrators, he gave to the defendant his bond to perform the award; that, upon this bond, suit had been brought against him, and a judgment obtained by the defendant; and he prayed, among other things, for an injunction to stay him from collecting the money. The ground, upon which he asked for the injunction, was, that in their award, the arbitrators had made a mistake, in this, among other items; that they had charged him with the sum of $1,553 59, whereas, they ought to have charged him only with the sum of $109 04, and that, upon a fair settlement of the accounts, the defendant would be largely indebted to him. The bill further states, that the first award of the arbitrators was made on the 22d day of December, 1841, and contained this error, which was transferred, by the arbitrators, into the second award, which was made and returned on the 17th March, 1842, and that he executed the bond, on which judgment was obtained, in ignorance of the error existing in it. An injunction was granted agreeably to the prayer of the bill.
The answer denies that the arbitrators made any mistake in stating the accounts, or that there was any error in the award made by them; and avers, that the item of $1,553 59, to which the complainant now excepts, was a just and proper charge against him, and that he did not owe the complainant any thing. It further states, that when the second award was made and handed to the parties, it was deliberately read over to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tobacco Growers' Co-op. Ass'n v. L. Harvey & Son Co
...to evade the material charges in the complaint, an injunction, on motion, will be dissolved.' Perkins v. Hollowell, 40 N. C. 24; Sharpe v. King, 38 N. C. 402. This is clearly so, if, upon the complaint, answer, and affidavits, it appears that the plaintiff's claim to have the restraining or......
- Barrington v. Neuse River Ferry Co.
-
Perkins v. Hollowell
...and exhibits no attempt to evade the material charges of the bill, it must be allowed. Moore v. Hylton & others, 1 Dev. Eq. 429. Sharpe v. King, 3 Ired. Eq. 402. In this case, we think the whole of the plaintiff's equity is denied. The plaintiff has placed his case, solely upon the ground, ......
-
Monroe v. McIntyre
...must be denied. The statements of the answer must be credible and exhibit no attempt to evade the material charges of the bill. Sharpe v. King, 3 Ired. Eq. 402. If upon the hearing of the answer, the statements are such as to leave in the mind of the Court a reasonable doubt, whether the pl......