Fulmore v. McGeorge

California Supreme Court Nov 6, 1891 No. No. 13775Published

Before: Vanclief

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the order denying the motion to vacate or modify the arbitration award, finding the award sufficiently definite and concluding that the arbitrators acted within their authority regarding the submitted partnership matters.

Issues

Whether the arbitration award was too indefinite to be enforced.
Whether the arbitrators committed gross error in charging specific items to the appellant.
Whether the arbitrators acted ultra vires in determining the nature of certain property interests.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Upon its face the award seems to be perfectly definite, to settle the partnership accounts, and to determine the respective rights of the parties as to all existing partnership property.”

“It is admitted that the items in question were submitted to the arbitrators. Under these circumstances, the award, as to them, is conclusive.”

“To determine a difference between partners as to what is partnership property as distinguished from the individual property of one of the partners is clearly a partnership matter, and falls within the written submission in this case.”

Synopsis

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Humboldt County denying a motion to vacate or modify an award.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

Vanclief, C. This is a matter of arbitration between the parties, and the appeal is from an order of the superior court denying appellant’s motions to vacate or to modify the award.

The written agreement of the parties to submit to arbitration, wdiich had been entered as an order of the court, is as follows: —

“ Whereas, differences are now existing between Smith Fulmore, of the county of Humboldt, and Peter McGeorge, of the same place, in relation to divers partnership matters and accounts,—

“ Now, therefore, "we, the undersigned, Smith Fulmore and |’eter McGeorge, do hereby agree that James Smith of Ferndale, J. D. Ferrill of Ferndale, and C. M. Wheeler of Eureka, or any two of them, shall arbitrate, award, judge, and determine of and concerning all said differences now existing between us in relation to our said partnership matters and accounts. And we do hereby mutually covenant and agree to and with each other that the award to be made by the said arbitrators, or any [615]two of them, shall in all things by us, and each of us, be well and faithfully kept and observed; provided, however, that the said award be made in writing under the hands of the said arbitrators, or any two of them, and ready to be delivered to the said parties in differences, or such of them as shall desire the same, on the twelfth day of June, 1888.

“ It is hereby further stipulated and agreed by and between the parties hereto, that this submission to arbitration shall be entered as an order of the superior court of the county of Humboldt, state of California.

“ In witness whereof the above-named parties have hereunto set their hands and seals this the twenty-first day of May, 1888.

“ (l. s.) Smith Fulmore.

“ (l. s.) Peter McGeorge.”

The award contains an itemized statement of the partnership accounts, showing a balance in favor of Fulmore and against McGeorge, of $302.70, to secure the payment of which it is found that the former has a lien by pledge upon the latter’s interest in a specified portion of the partnership property. The award also contains a complete schedule of the existing partnership property, in which it is awarded that the parties are equally interested, subject to said lien upon McGeorge’s interest in a specified portion thereof. ■

Fulmore v. McGeorge

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief