Meloy v. Imperial Land Co.
Before: Sloss
Synopsis
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
SLOSS, J.
A controversy having arisen between the co-partnership of Miller and. Meloy (under whom plaintiff claims as assignee) and the defendant Imperial Land Company, an agreement was entered into for the submission of such controversy to arbitration. This action was instituted
[100]
to recover the sums of $76-7.50 and $2,667.50, alleged to have been found by the arbitrators to be due from the defendant. A second count, based on the same cause of action embodied in the arbitration, was dismissed upon motion of the plaintiff.
The agreement for arbitration did not comply with the terms of section 1283 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was valid, however, as a stipulation for a common-law arbitration. (K
reiss
v.
Hotaling,
96 Cal. 617, [31 Pac. 740].) It provided that E. A. Meserve, Ben S. Hunter, and W. H. Anderson should have the right and power “to take such evidence as they may deem necessary or advisable pertaining to the question herein involved, and to render a statement of the amount of money due to the parties to this agreement from each other.” The parties agreed to pay “such sums of money as may be found to be due one from the other, within thirty days from receipt of a statement signed by a majority of the above-named abritrators showing said amount.” It was further agreed “that the hearing of evidence under this agreement to arbitrate shall take place at 9:30 a. m. on March 23, 1909, at the office of W. H. Anderson. ’ ’
The complaint alleges that all the parties met at the stipulated time and place, that evidence was introduced on behalf of plaintiff and defendant, “and the matter was then submitted to the arbitrators for their consideration and decision.” It is alleged that on May 3, 190-9, a majority of the arbitrators, to wit: Hunter and Anderson, found to be due from defendant to plaintiff the sums demanded in the complaint; that a written statement, showing such amounts to be due, signed by said arbitrators, was delivered to defendant, but the latter, although more than thirty days have elapsed, refuses to pay any part of said sums.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)