Gisborne v Hart
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1839 |
| Date | 01 January 1839 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 151 E.R. 23
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. 7 Dowl. P. C. 402; 8 L. J. Ex. 197; 3 Jur. 536.
gisboene v. hart. Exch. of Pleas. 1839.- Where an action of assumpsit, the declaration iri which contained a count upon a promissory note for 221. 11s. 9d., and a count upon an account stated for 301., was referred to arbitration, and the arbitrator found that the plaintiff had good cause of action for, and was and is legally entitled to have, claim, and recover of and from the defendant, the aura of 221. 11s. 9d.r being the amount of the promissory note mentioned in the pleadings in the said cause : - Held, that the award was bad, inasmuch as it did not dispose of the issue upon the account stated. - In an action upon the award, the declaration stated that the original action was referred by a rule of court to A. B., who duly made his award of and concerning the premises so referred to him, and did thereby find &c. The defendant pleaded, that the said A. J3. did not duly make and publish his award of and concerning the premises referred, in manner and form &o. : - Held, that the production of the award and the rule of court was sufficient prhna facie evidence to support the issue on the part of the plaintiff, until the validity of the award was impeached by evidence dehors on the part of the defendant. [S. C. 7 Dowl. P. C. 402 ; 8 I,. J. Ex. 197 ; 3 Jur. 536.] Debt. The declaration stated, for that whereas theretofore, to wit, on &c., a certain cause was pending and [51] undetermined in her Majesty's Court of Common Pleas at Lancaster, wherein the plaintiff and defendant were respectively also the plaintiff and defendant; and thereupon, to wit, on the same day and year aforesaid, by a rule or order of the said Court, upon hearing the attorneys or agents on both sides,: and by their consent, it was ordered that the said cause be referred to the award, order, arbitrament, final end and determination of J. S. T. Gr., Esq., barrister afc law, so thut he made and published his award in writing, and ready to be delivered to the parties, or either of them requiring the same, on or before the 1st of June then next ensuing ; and by the like consent it was ordered by the said Court, that the said arbitrator should be at liberty, if he should think fit, to examine the said parties to the said suit upon oath ; and for that purpose the said parties, and also the witnesses to be examined before the said arbitrator, touching the matters referred, should and might be sworn before a Judge of her Majesty's Court of Common Pleas at Lancaster, or some commissioner duly authorized, or the said arbitrator; and that the said parties should produce before the said arbitrator all books, deeds, papers and writings whatsoever, in their or either of their custody or power relating to the matters in difference ; and by the like consent it was also ordered by the said Court, that the costs of the said suit should abide the event of the award to be made and published as aforesaid, and that the costs of the reference should be in the discretion of the said arbitrator ; and that the said parties should, on their respective parts, in all things stand to, obey, abide by, perform, fulfil, and keep the award, order, arbitrament, final end aud determination of the said arbitrator, so to be made and published as aforesaid; and by the like consent it was further ordered by the said Court, that if either of the said parties should by affected or wilful delay prevent the said arbitrator fsomlmaking his award ready to be delivered as aforesaid, in that case the party so offending should pay the [52] other such coats as her Majesty's Court of Common Plead at Lancaster should direct ; and that neither of the parties should bring or prosecute, or cause to be brought or prosecuted, any writ of error, or file any bill of equity against the said arbitrator, or against each other, as by such rule or order, reference being thereunto had, will fully and at large appear : and the plaintiff in fact aaithj that afterwards and before the said 1st day of June aforesaid, to wit, on the 3Qth of May in the year 183M aforesaid, the said arbitrator took upon himself...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Birks v Trippet
...to adjudicate on all the issues in the action, whether raised on different counts or different pleas; 10 Bing. 507, Norris v. Daniel. 5 Mees. & W. 50, Gisborne v. Hart. 8 A. & E. 246, WyTces v. Shipton. 5 Dowl. 442, Hunt v. Hunt. 9 Dowl. 1052, England v. Davism. 10 M. & W. 550, Bmtrke\. Llo......
-
Veale v Warner
...is the same thing as no award, and a support to, rather than a departure from, his plea. [See also 3 M. & W. 72, Hickes v. Cracknell. 5 M. & W. 50, Gisbome v. Hart. Post, Vol. II. 84, note (1), et seq.] (A) The reader must not infer, that where the defendant pleads nul agard, and the plaint......
-
Kinning v Buchanan
...was well put in issue by the replication. The following cases were also cited:-Dresser v. Siansfield (14 M. & W. 822); Gisborne v. Hart (5 M. & W. 50); Williams v. Germaine (7 B. & C. 468, 1 M. & E. 394, 403); Dudlow v. Watchorn (16 East, 39); Sandon v. Proctor (7 B. & C. 800); Everard v. P......
-
Bloor v Davies and Bloor
...7M. ftW. 241. BLOOR V. DAVIES 755 a strong intimation of the opinion of the Court against the objection, hi Doe d. Wild-goose, v. Pearce (5 M. & W. 50G), which was an ejectment by a party claiming an undivided interest in an estate under a will, the question in the cause being the competenc......