Macarthur against Campbell

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date10 November 1834
Date10 November 1834
CourtCourt of the King's Bench

English Reports Citation: 110 E.R. 882

IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH

Macarthur against Campbell

S. C. 2 N. & M. 444. For subsequent proceedings see 2 Ad. & E. 52.

[518] macarthur against campbell. Thursday, Nov. 7th, 1833. On a reference of a cause and all matters in difference by a Judge's order, one of the parties moved, after the proper time, to set the award aside: Held, no excuse for the delay, that the arbitrator made an exorbitant charge for the award, in consequence of which the party now applying did not take it up. An award is published when the arbitrator gives the parties notice that it may be had on payment of his charges; whether they be reasonable or not. [S. C. 2 N. & M. 444. For subsequent proceedings see 2 Ad. & E. 52.] This cause, and all matters in difference between the parties, were, by an order of Lord Tenterden, referred to an arbitrator; the costs of the suit and reference to abide the event of the award. The arbitrator, on the 13th of November 1832, gave notice that he had made his award, ready to be delivered, on payment of his charges; but the plaintiff, considering the charges exorbitant, did not take up the award, and, consequently, remained in ignorance of its contents till the 14th of March 1833, when he received a duplicate of the award from the defendant, in whose.favour it was. The award bore date the 12th of November 1832. The order of reference having been made a rule of Court, the plaintiff, in Easter term 1833, obtained a rule nisi for setting the award aside, on several grounds, of which the exorbitant charge was one. Sir James Scarlett now shewed cause, and contended that the application came too late, and that the .plaintiff's objection to pay the arbitrator's demand was no excuse for the delay; to which point he cited Musselbrookv. DunJcin (9 Bing. 605). Follett contra. This, being a reference under a Judge's order, is not within 9 & 10 W. 3, c. 15, s. 2, and therefore it was not necessary that the motion [519] should have been made in the next term after the award was published. [Parke J. The Court adopts the provision of that statute as a rule in other cases.] At all events, the circumstances of this case take it out of the rule. [Denman C.J. You do not statu that you applied for the award, and that it was refused because an exorbitant fee was not paid ; though I do not know that even that would be sufficient.] In Musselbrook v. Durikin (9 Bing. 605), Tindal C.J. says, referring to the words of the statute, which directs that a motion to set aside an award shall be made before the last day of the term next after the award shall have been made and published :-" The question...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Birks v Trippet
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of the King's Bench
    • 1 January 1845
    ...in such case, the award cannot be impeached, on this ground, in shewing cause against an attachment; 6 T. E. 161, Holland v. Brooks. 2 A. & E. 52, Macarfhur v. Campbell; nor on a motion to set aside a judgment on the award. 8 A. & E. 235, Doe v. Homer.] But the objection may be pleaded as a......
  • Veale v Warner
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of the King's Bench
    • 1 January 1845
    ...is no answer to a motion for an attachment. 3 Bing. 167, Brazier v. Bryant. 10 Moore, 587. S. C. 2 Cr. & M. 235, Paull v. Paull. 2 A. & E. 52, Macarthur v. Campbell. 4 Nev. & M. 208, S. C. See, however, 2 Burr. 702, per Lord Mansfield, and the statute 9 & 10 W. 3, c. 15, s. 1, adfinem.] (q)......
  • Hong Huat Development Company (Pte) Ltd v Hiap Hong & Company Pte Ltd
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 16 March 2001
    ...Lubenham Fidelities and Investments Co Ltd v South Pembrokeshire District Council (1986) 33 BLR 39 (refd) Macarthur v Campbell (1833) 5 B & Ad 518; 110 ER 882 (refd) Mebro Oil SA v Gatoil International Inc [1985] 2 Lloyd's Rep 234 (refd) Mortgage Corp Ltd v Sandoes [1996] TLR 751 (refd) Mus......
  • Roberts v Eberhardt
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Common Pleas
    • 8 December 1857
    ...the above objections are open to the defendant under the issue taken on the third plea." 840 ROBERTS V. EBERfiAR-pT S C. B. (H. S.)589. 5 B. & Ad. 518, Lord Denman, in delivering the judgment of the court, intimates that, 509] if necessary, as against the arbitrator, the amount of the Charg......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT