Tank v. Rohweder

• Decision Date: 13 May 1896
• Citation: 98 Iowa 154,67 N.W. 106
• Parties: TANK v. ROHWEDER.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

98 Iowa 154

67 N.W. 106

TANK

v.ROHWEDER.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

May 13, 1896.

Appeal from district court, Scott county; W. F. Brannan, Judge.

Action at law, aided by an attachment, upon four promissory notes. The defendant admitted the execution of the notes, but denied that he was to pay interest on the same, and pleaded a counterclaim for work and labor done, for property sold and delivered, for rent of land, for the wrongful and malicious suing out of the writ of attachment, and for various other matters not necessary to be here mentioned. And he asked reformation of the notes in suit, and judgment for the amount of his various counterclaims. The plaintiff replied, denying the counterclaims, and pleading that when defendant performed the services for which he seeks to recover he was a member of plaintiff's family, and that he did not expect compensation therefor. Various other matters were pleaded in the reply which need not be here set out. By agreement of the parties, the case, on the issues thus joined, was referred to arbitrators, and they, after hearing the evidence, made an award in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $967.90. Defendant filed a motion in the district court to set aside this award, and plaintiff filed a motion for judgment thereon. Defendant's motion was overruled, and plaintiff's was sustained, and judgment was rendered as recommended by the arbitrators. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.Ambrose P. McGuirk, for appellant.

Heinz & Fisher, for appellee.

DEEMER, J.

To set aside the award of the arbitrators and review the judgment of the court below, the defendant relies upon errors of the arbitrators in refusing to allow certain of the defendant's items of counterclaim, and of the court in refusing to set aside the award. It may be well at the threshold of the case to state certain rules of law applicable to arbitrations, that we may the better apply the facts as they may hereafter appear. The submission seems to have been made under the statute (Code, § 3419); and to entitle a party to have an award set aside on the ground of mistake or fraud he must not only clearly show the mistake or fraud, and that he was prejudiced thereby, but also that, if it had not occurred, the award would have been different. Tomlinson v. Tomlinson, 3 Iowa, 575;Gorham v. Millard, 50 Iowa, 554. An award has the same force and effect as the verdict of a jury (Code, § 3428), and every reasonable presumption is in favor of the correctness of the arbitrators' determination. Tomlinson v. Hammond, 8 Iowa, 40. The mode in which the arbitration is conducted, and the methods of procedure adopted, will not be reviewed by the courts, except in clear cases of error, mistake, fraud, or partiality.

With these rules determined, we now proceed to a consideration of the errors complained of. It is contended that the arbitrators were in error in refusing to allow defendant anything on his counterclaim for the wrongful suing out of the attachment. In support of the claim it is said that the undisputed testimony shows that the attachment was wrongful. This question was considered by the arbitrators, and they evidently determined that defendant had not made out his claim. What their determination should have been, or what we would have done under the same showing, is not a question here presented. But was there such lack of evidence on the part of the defendant, or such a showing on behalf of appellee, as that they could fairly have arrived at the conclusion they did; or is it the result of passion or prejudice? And would we have set aside the verdict of a jury had it made such a finding on the same record? We think there is such a showing as that the arbitrators were justified in making the finding they did on this issue. While the facts relied upon to show the truth of the matters stated as ground for the attachment are not strong, and may not in themselves have been sufficient, yet we cannot say, in view of all the surrounding circumstances, that the attachment was unwarranted. Moreover, it appears that before commencing his suit plaintiff submitted the facts to counsel learned in the law, and was advised by him to commence an attachment suit. The arbitrators may well have found this a complete defense to exemplary damages. Raver v. Webster, 3 Iowa, 502;Hurlbut v. Hardenbrook, 85 Iowa, 606, 52 N. W. 510. And as the attachment was levied upon...