Porter v. Scott
Before: Murray
Synopsis
It is the duty of arbitrators to pass upon the whole subject in controversy; and if it appears on the face of the award that they have not disposed of the whole matter, or if the terms of the award render a further inquiry necessary to ascertain a sum to be paid, or an act to be done, it is void.
When arbitrators have published their award, any alteration whatever, without the consent of parties, will vitiate it, and this, though the alteration was to fix certain amounts left undetermined in the award.
Murray, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court—Terry, J., concurring.
The argument of this case has elicited an amount of labor and research highly creditable to the learned counsel who represent the parties, and we regret that the press of business prevents us from following them in the examination of many of the principles which have been so ably discussed.
The plaintiff declared on an arbitration bond; the defendant denies the award. On the trial of the cause the plaintiff introduced an award dated October 1,1852, signed by the arbitrators and one Hussey, who purported to act as umpire. After stating the result of their deliberations, the award concludes with these words: “ Leaving the amount to be allowed for detention of brig and legal expenses to be filled up when they are definitely ascertained." To this is appended a statement of the account between the parties in which the amounts for said items are carried out
The defendants contended on their part, that on the first of October 1852, the arbitrators had made their award, and that the plaintiff had served a copy of the same upon the defendant; that said award contained the same recital as above set forth, but that the amounts were not ascertained or carried out, and that the same was done by said Hussey after the award was published. Testimony tending to establish this fact was introduced, and the evidence of Hussey, the umpire, upon this point, was excluded on the ground that he could not be allowed to impeach his own award. This ruling of the Court is assigned as error. It is not necessary, however, to consider it, as there was sufficient evidence to warrant the jury in finding for the defendant, had the Court instructed them properly upon the law.
The whole contest was whether the award, as declared on, was complete at the day of its publication, or whether it had been afterwards filled up by Hussey.
Under these circumstances the defendant’s counsel asked the Court to charge the jury substantially as follows: That if the award was made and delivered to the respective parties, with the three last items or charges left in blank, that the plaintiff could not recover. That if a different award (which was in evidence) was delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant, which he plaintiff represented as the award between them, then the plaintiff was bound by the award, or if, after the award was signed by the arbitrators and the umpire, and delivered to the plaintiff and defendant, as the award between them, and was afterwards amended or altered without the knowledge or consent of the [316]
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)