Mills v The Master, Wardens and Society of the Mystery of Bowyers, in the City of London The Master, Company, of the Mystery of Bowyers, Company, v Mills
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 December 1856 |
| Date | 11 December 1856 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 69 E.R. 1024
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See Flynn v. Robertson, 1869, L. R. 4 C. P. 326; Dinn v. Blake, 1875, L. R. 10 C. P. 389. Considered, In re Whiteley and Roberts Arbitration [1891], 1 Ch. 558. See In re Keighley, Maxsted & Company and Durant & Company [1893], 1 Q. B. 412.
Abitration. Correcting Award. Evidence. Common Law Procedure Act, 1854, s. 8.
[66] mills v. the master, wardens and society op the mystery of : bowyers, in the city of london. the master, &c., of the mystery of bowyers, &a, v. mills. Dec, 11, 1856. [See Flynn v. Sobertsm, 1869, L. E. 4 C. P. 326; Dinn v. Blake, 1875, L. E. 10 C. P. 389. Considered, In re WUtdey and Roberts' Arbitration [1891], 1 Ch. 558. See In re Keighley, Maxsted & Company and Durant & Company [1893], 1 Q. B. 412.] Arbitration. Correcting Award. Evidence. Common Law Procedure Act, 1854, s. 8. Upon a motion to set aside an award, or to refer it back to the arbitrators, the Court will receive evidence by affidavit. Pending a reference to arbitration, the umpire held a communication with the agents of one of the parties : this fact being known to all the parties at the time, and not objected to by any of them, and the reference having proceeded, and the award having been subsequently made : Held,-that it was too late for either of the parties, after the award was made, to object to it, on the ground of such communication between the umpire and the agents of one of them. The 8th section of the Common Law Procedure Act, 1854, does not authorise the Court to send back the award for reconsideration by the arbitrators on any ground except 3K. &J.67. MILLS V. THE MASTER, ETC., OF SOCIETY OF BOWYERS 1025 such as before that statute would have induced it to set aside the award, or to treat it as a nullity in an action brought upon it. The object of that section was, where any error, formal or otherwise, had occurred which would vitiate the award, to enable the Court to send it back, if they thought fit, to the arbitrators to correct such error, instead of setting the award wholly aside. If a mistake has been made in the award, not apparent on the face of it, and such mistake is admitted in an affidavit by the arbitrators, such an admission is sufficient to authorise the Court to set aside the award under the former practice, or to refer it back under that statute. So also, if the arbitrators insist that they have made no mistake, but state the principle upon which they made the award, and the Court is of opinion that such principle is not consistent with the reference. The first cause was for specific performance of an agreement to grant a lease for fourteen years, and for an injunction to restrain an action of ejectment by the landlords. The cross-suit was to restrain breaches by the tenant of the provisions of the agreement under which he held. By an order in these causes, dated the 2d of July 1856, Mills agreeing to quit certain farms in Leicestershire therein mentioned, which he held as tenant to the Bowyers' Company, without compensation for the termination of his tenancy, and to-pay the company for any damage done by him to the farms, having regard to his holding on the four-course system of husbandry ; and the Bowyers' Company agreeing to pay Mills for such tenant's improvements, if any, as might have been properly made by him, and for the value of his growing crops, and usual allowances, to be made to him as between an outgoing and incoming tenant, [67] according to the custom of the country, in other respects than such as were provided for by his lease: It was ordered, by consent, that such payments should be made accordingly, and that the amount thereof should be determined by arbitratidn ; and two persons, named in the order, were appointed arbitrators; and it was ordered that the reserved rent and interest, rates and taxes, apportioned to the day of possession delivered, and the amount, if any, that might be awarded for any damage done to the farms by Mills, and any costs awarded to be paid by him to the company, should be set off against any payment coming to him from them. And all proceedings in the suits were stayed, except the carrying out this order; and liberty was given to any party to apply. The arbitrators met, chose an umpire, and one of them with the umpire, the other arbitrator dissenting, made an award; and thereby ordered that the amount of the allowances and payments to be paid to Mills to the company for damage done to the farms by Mills, having regard to his holding under the four-course system, and, in other respects, under the terms of his lease, was the sum of .50. And that the amount of the payments and allowances to be paid to Mills by the company for the tenant's improvements, crops and usual allowances, was the sum of 1775, 10s. 5d. ; and that each party should pay their own costs of the arbitration, and half the costs of the award. This was a motion by Mills to refer back to the arbitrators the question of the value of certain specified crops...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
King and Another v Thomas McKenna Ltd and Another
...is somewhat startling in the light of the plain words of the section, but it is not unsupported by authority (see, for example, Mills v. The Society of Bowyers (1856) 3 K.& J., Hodkinson v. Fernie (1857) 3 C.B.(N.S). 189 and Hodge v. Burgess (1858) 3 H.& N. 293). Indeed the learned editors ......
-
Jamaica Hydroponics Ltd v Alumina Partners of Jamaica
...himself in similar terms. 48 The case of Mills v The Master and Wardens and Society of the Mystery of Bowyers in the City of London 69 ER 1024 was to the same effect. 49 From these cases, the path of the development of the law is no longer in doubt. The arbitrations that occurred because of......
-
Re an Arbitration between Keighley, Maxted, and Company and Bryan, Durant, and Company
...Maxted, and Co. and Bryan, Durant, and Co. Dinn v. Blake 32 L. T. Rep. N. S. 489 L. Rep. 10 C. P. 388 Mills v. The Bowyers' CompanyENR 3 K. & J. 66 Burnard v. WainwrightUNK 19 L. J. 423, Q. B. Arbitration Act 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 49), s. 10 Arbitration — Award — Remitting for reconsiderat......
-
Collins v Collins
...c. 42, ss. 39, 40, 41 ; Gmirla-y v. The Duke of Somerset (19 Ves. 429); Tilsey on the Stamp Act (p. (16); Mills v. The Bowyers Company (3 Kay & J. 66); lie ditkeria Arbitration (3 Jurist (N. S.), 1296); Brown v. Tanner (1 M'Clel. & Y. 464; 1 Car. & P. 651); and see Jebb v. M'Kiernan (Moody ......