Snodgrass v. Ambester

• Decision Date: 21 May 1890
• Citation: 7 So. 840,90 Ala. 493
• Parties: SNODGRASS v. AMBESTER.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

7 So. 840

90 Ala. 493

SNODGRASS v. AMBESTER.

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 21, 1890

Appeal from circuit court, Jackson county; JOHN B. TALLY, Judge.

Code Ala. § 3221, provides that courts may refer pending causes to arbitrators chosen by the parties or their attorneys. Section 3222 provides that, when no suit is pending, the parties may refer their controversy to arbitrators chosen by themselves whose award may be entered up as the judgment of the proper court. Section 3223 provides that the parties must concisely state in writing, signed by them, the matter in dispute between them.

R C. Brickell and Hunt & Clopton, for appellant.

W L. Martin, for appellee.

MCCLELLAN J.

Technically an order of court directing, by consent of parties, the arbitration of matters involved in a pending suit is not a submission to arbitrators, but a reference of the cause as presented by the pleadings. Upon such reference, there is no office for the written submission entered into by the parties to perform. If the matter in controversy already sufficiently appears from any part of the record,-and it does sufficiently appear from the complaint or statement of the cause of action in every pending suit,-any further statement of it in writing is unnecessary. Mendenhall v. Smith, Minor, (Ala.) 380; Chapman v. Ewing, 78 Ala. 403.

This is made to appear more fully by a reference to the act of 1819 which provides for the appointment of arbitrators by the parties for the settlement of any suit or controversy, "and (if no suit is pending) the parties shall concisely state in writing the nature of the controversy," etc.; and this distinction as to the necessity for a written submission, stating the matter in dispute, is preserved in our present Code, §§ 3221-3223. The objection to the award in this case, on the ground that the parties did not "concisely state in writing, signed by them, the matter in dispute between them," is therefore untenable; no such statement being required when the arbitration is had on an order of reference in a pending suit.

The only other objection made is predicated on the fact that, one of the arbitrators originally agreed on having declined to act, another was substituted by agreement of parties, and no memorandum of the substitution was made on the submission, as required by section 3225 of the Code. The submission here referred to is that concise statement of the matter in dispute, and the...