Musselbrook v Dunkin
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 24 January 1833 |
| Date | 24 January 1833 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 131 E.R. 741
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
S. C. 2 Moo. & Sc. 740; 1 D. P. C. 722; 2 L. J. C. P. 71.
[605] musselbrook v. dunkin. Jan. 24, 1833. [S. C. 2 Moo. & So. 740; 1 D. P. 0. 722; 2 L. J. C. P. 71.] An award is to be considered as published when the parties have notice that it is ready for delivery on payment of the reasonable charges. An award in this cause, made by a barrister under an order of Nisi Prius, was ready for delivery on the 19th of May last, of which the parties had notice; but an objection being raised to the arbitrator's charges, a rule was obtained in Trinity term, June 14, to refer it to the prothonotary to tax those charges. That rule was made absolute June 16, the last day of Trinity term; and the prothonotary concluded his taxation in July. Neither party, however, took up the award till Saturday the 24th of November last, when the Defendant obtained possession of it by paying the charges allowed by the prothonotary; whereupon the Plaintiff, on the last day of Michaelmas term, Monday Nov. 26, obtained a rule nisi to set aside the award, on the ground of partiality and misconduct in the arbitrator; his having employed a deputy ; the reception of improper evidence; and a decision contrary to evidence. Taddy and Coleridge Serjts., who shewed cause, contended that the application came too late. By analogy to the rule prescribed for awards made under the statute of 9 & 10 W. 3, c. 15, the application ought to have been made before the last day of the term ensuing the publication of the award. The publication is when the parties receive notice that the award is ready for delivery : and even if under the circumstances of this case the award should be considered as not ready for delivery till the month of July, still, an application to set it aside should have been made before the last day of Michaelmas term : [606] Rogers v. Dallimore (6 Taunt. Ill), EawstTwrn v. Arnold (6 B. & C. 629), Taylor v. Gregory (2 B. & Adol. 774). In an order of reference, where the arbitrator's time is limited, the word publish can scarcely have a different meaning from the same word in the statute; and awards under such orders would almost always be published beyond the time allowed, if not deemed to be published at the time they are ready for delivery. Wilde and Bompas Serjts. in support of the rule. An award cannot be said to be published to a party before he has notice of its contents. The Defendant had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Veale v Warner
...having been made, and notice having been given to the parties that it is within their reach mi payment of just and reasonable, expenses. 9 Bing. 605, Musselbrook v. Dunkin. 2 M. & Sc. 740, S. C. But in a subsequent ease in Q. B. it was holden, that an award is " published " within the meani......
-
Hong Huat Development Company (Pte) Ltd v Hiap Hong & Company Pte Ltd
...SA v Gatoil International Inc [1985] 2 Lloyd's Rep 234 (refd) Mortgage Corp Ltd v Sandoes [1996] TLR 751 (refd) Musselbrook v Dunkin (1833) 9 Bing 605; 131 ER 741 (refd) Nema, The [1980] QB 547, CA (refd) Nema, The [1982] AC 724, HL (refd) Ong Chen Leng v Tan Sau Poo [1993] 2 SLR (R) 545; [......
- Bulk Transport Corporation v Sissy Steamship Company Ltd (Archipelagos, Delfi)
-
Macarthur against Campbell
...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 da......