Wolfe v. Hyatt
| Decision Date | 31 October 1882 |
| Parties | WOLFE v. HYATT, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Error to Johnson Circuit Court.--HON. NOAH M. GIVAN, Judge.
REVERSED.
Land & Sparks for plaintiff in error.
S. T. White for defendant in error.
This is a suit on an award made in pursuance of a written submission of all matters in controversy between the plaintiff and the defendant arising out of a copartnership which had existed between them, which award the defendant refused to perform. Various defenses were interposed, both of a legal and equitable nature, which it is unnecessary for us to consider.
It appears from uncontradicted testimony that none of the witnesses who appeared before the arbitrator, were sworn. The submission in this case does not provide that judgment may be entered in the circuit court upon the award, but notwithstanding the omission of such provision we are of opinion that it is subject to the general provisions of the statute regulating arbitrations. In Bridgman v. Bridgman, 23 Mo. 272, Leonard, J., in delivering the opinion of this court, said: “We think, however, that all written submissions are within the statute, and that the section prescribing the official oath, as well as the other sections of the act that are not specifically confined to a submission authorizing a circuit court judgment to be entered, are equally applicable to both classes.” Section 330 of the Revised Statutes, which was in force when this submission was made, provides that arbitrators shall have the same power to issue subpœnas to witnesses and to compel their attendance by attachment, to administer oaths, and punish contempts committed in their presence during the hearing of the cause, that may be given by law to justices of the peace. This section is not specifically confined to submissions authorizing a circuit court judgment to be entered on the award, and, under the authority of the case cited, is, therefore, applicable to the submission before us. The arbitrator having failed to require the witnesses to testify under oath, and the necessity of an oath not having been waived by the defendant, the award is a nullity, and no action can be maintained upon it. The judgment of the circuit court, which was for the plaintiff, will be reversed.
All concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cochran v. Bartle
...18 Mo. 399; Bridgman v. Bridgman, 23 Mo. 272; Hamlin v. Duke, 28 Mo. 166; Walt v. Huse, 38 Mo. 210; Fassett v. Fassett, 41 Mo. 516; Wolf v. Hyatt, 76 Mo. 156; Williams v. Perkins, 83 Mo. 379, 384; Hepburn Jones, 4 Col. 98. (2) The neglect of the arbitrators to be sworn was not a mere irregu......
-
McManus v. Farmers Mut. Hail Ins. Co. of Mo.
...in the "Arbitration Agreement" for the circuit court entering judgment on the award does not make it any the less an arbitration. [Wolfe v. Hyatt, 76 Mo. 156; Thatcher Implement & Merc. Co. v. Brubaker, 193 Mo.App. 627, 187 S.W. II. Plaintiff introduced in evidence a plat of Section 26, Tow......
-
Continental Bank Supply Co. v. International Broth. of Bookbinders, Local No. 243, Mexico, Mo.
...was said that since the submission was in writing it was under the statute, citing Bridgman v. Bridgman, supra, and other cases. In Wolfe v. Hyatt, 76 Mo. 156, above language from the Bridgman decision was quoted with approval. In Williams v. Perkins, supra, it was held that a written submi......
-
McManus v. Farmers Mut. Hail Ins. Co.
...in the "Arbitration Agreement" for the circuit court entering judgment on the award does not make it any the less an arbitration. [Wolfe v. Hyatt, 76 Mo. 156; Thatcher Implement & Merc. Co. v. Brubaker, 193 Mo. App. 627, 187 S.W. II. Plaintiff introduced in evidence a plat of Section 26, To......