Thomas v. Trustees of Lunalilo Estate
| Decision Date | 07 January 1884 |
| Citation | 5 Haw. 39 |
| Parties | E. B. THOMAS v. TRUSTEES OF THE LUNALILO ESTATE. |
| Court | Hawaii Supreme Court |
SPECIAL TERM, DECEMBER, 1883.
APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED UPON AN AWARD OF ARBITRATORS.
Syllabus by the Court
An award made bona fide and in accordance with the terms of the submission, held to be conclusive on the parties.
A clause in the submission allowing an appeal, the appellate court to fix costs of the appeal, does not take the case out of the Statute.
Sections of the Code, referred to in the decision, are as follows:
§933. If there is no provision in the submission concerning the costs of the proceedings, the arbitrators may make such award respecting the costs as they shall judge reasonable. ****
E Preston and J. Russell, for plaintiff.
S. B Dole and W. O. Smith, for defendants.
OPINION
THIS is an appeal from an award entered up as a judgment of the court in favor of the plaintiff.
The appellants claim that the item of $2, 500 for extra work in cutting stone was not submitted to the arbitrators by the agreement to arbitrate, and that the contract which was attached to that agreement showed that the extra work must be specified in writing or it could not be charged for, and that a mistake of fact was also made in not charging plaintiff $5 a day for time beyond the contract time for completing the contract; and that in allowing the $3, 500 item, the arbitrators made a clear mistake of law, and a mistake of fact in disallowing the other item; and that for these reasons the award is void and the judgment must be set aside.
In examining the agreement to arbitrate, it appears that the item of $2, 500 was submitted specifically to the arbitrators, and on reading the testimony, that the parties testified fully about it.
The arbitrators must have thought upon the evidence that there was a substantial waiver of the requirement to specify the extra work in writing, which was binding in law. We are not prepared to say but that they were right in so finding. They certainly had a right to proceed to see whether the item could or ought to be allowed.
Upon the item of extra time at $5 a day taken to complete the work, the arbitrators must have found that the circumstances showed a waiver of the clause providing a day for completion. The evidence seems to show such a waiver.
The award seems to have been made in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tatibouet v. Ellsworth
...can[not] be permitted to prove that the arbitrators decided wrong either as to the law or the facts of the case." Thomas v. Trustees of Lunalilo Estate, 5 Haw. 39, 40 (1883). Undue judicial review, and subsequent interference, would not only stymie legislative intent but would also thwart t......
-
Arbitration of Nordic PCL Constr., Inc. v. LPIHGC, LLC
...658–10, and the circuit court correctly ruled that it was powerless to modify or correct the award."); see also Thomas v. Trustees of Lunalilo Estate, 5 Haw. 39, 40 (Terr.1883) ("[I]t is well settled that the award, if made in good faith, is conclusive upon the parties, and that [they] can[......
-
Arbitration of Bd. of Directors of Ass'n of Apartment Owners of Tropicana Manor
...them can be permitted to prove that the arbitrators decided wrong either as to the law or the facts of the case." Thomas v. Trustees of Lunalilo Estate, 5 Haw. 39, 40 (1883) (citations omitted). We note that appellees contend that "the issue of attorney's fees had not been adequately briefe......
-
Gregg Kendall & Associates, Inc. v. Kauhi
...litigation. Mars Constr. v. Tropical Enterprises, 51 Haw. 332, 460 P.2d 317 (1969); Richard v. Ontai, 20 Haw. 198 (1910); Thomas v. Lunalilo Estate, 5 Haw. 39 (1883). In furtherance of this policy, HRS § 658-5 provides that after action is instituted and the issue of arbitration is raised t......