Newnham v Parbery
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 20 January 1841 |
| Date | 20 January 1841 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 151 E.R. 812
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. 9 Dowl. P. C. 288; 10 L. J. Ex. 169; 5 Jur. 175.
[878] parbeky v. newnham. newnham . pakbkhy. Exch. of Pleas. Jan. 20, 1841.-The Court has power, under the stat. 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 42, s. 39, to enlarge the time for an arbitrator to make his award, where the arbitrator, having power to do so, has allowed the time limited by the submission for1 making the award to elapse without doing so. [S. C. 9 Dovvl. P. C. 288; 10 L. J. Ex. 169; 5 Jur. 175.] These causes were referred to arbitration under an order of Tindal, C. J., (which was afterwards made a rule of Court), "so as the arbitrator should make and publish his award in writing, ready to be delivered to the parties, or any or either of them, if they should require the same, on or before the 27th day of May, 1840, or on or before such further or ulterior day as the arbitrator should from time to time appoint, and signify in writing under his hand on the said order." The arbitrator proceeded with the reference, arid held several meetings; but before the cases were drought to a conclusion, the time limited in the order of reference had expired, without the arbitrator's having made any indorsement on the order enlarging it. No application was made to him by either of the parties to enlarge the time ; but when he was about to make his award, the plaintiff objected that his authority was at an end. It appeared also, that, after the time had expired, the defendant's attorney informed the plaintiff's attorney of the circumstance, when the latter answered-" Very well, I suppose the time can be enlarged by a Judge's order:" and both parties afterwards attended meetings before the arbitrator. ' In Michaelmas Term, Gaselee, Serjt., obtained a rule to shew cause why the time for making the award should not be enlarged until the first day of Hilary Term. In the same term, Sir F. Pollock and Macaulav shewed cause. The question is, whether under the circumstances of this case the Court have power to enlarge the time for making the award, under the stat. 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 42, s. 39, which enacts, "that the power and authority of any arbitrator [379] or umpire appointed by or in pursuance of any rule of Court or Judge's order, or order of Nisi Pnus, in any action now brought or which 7Ui*W.380. PARBERY V. NEWNHAM 813 hereafter be brought, &c., shall not be revocable by any party to such reference, without the leave of the Court by which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coppin v Hurnard
...himself power to enlarge the time, has allowed the time limited by the submission for making the award to elapse without doing so. 7 Mees. & W. 378, Purbery v. Newnham. But see 7 Dowl. 539, dm v. Powell, ctmiin Patteaon J. 2 Mann. & gt. 860, Lambert v. Hutchinxm, per Tindal C.J. contra. 3 S......
-
Wilkes v Hopkins, Nichols, and Francis Bishop
...re, 5 B. & Ad. 488, 494, 2 Nev. & Mann. 328; Potter v. Newman, Tyrwh. & Gr. 29, 2 C. M. & E. 742, 4 Dowl. P. C. 504; Parlery v. Newnham, 7 M. & W. 378 ; Salkeld and Another, In re, 12 Ad. & E. 767, 4 Perr. & Dav. 732. 1C.B.740. WILKES V. HOPKINS 733 on the ground that an improper effect had......
-
Wishart and Another v Fowler
...cannot enlarge the time for making his award after the expiration of the original time, yet the Court has that power; Parlery v. Nevmham (7 M. & W. 378), Leslie v. Richardson (6 C. B. 378), Parkes v. Smith (15 Q. B. 297). Cockburn C.J. It could hardly have been the intention of the Legislat......
-
Parkes against Smith
...confidence to that extent in the public functionaries, and presuming that they will exerciae (a) 6 Com. B. 378: see Parlerry v. Newnham, 7 M. & W. 378, there cited ; and In re Salkeld and Slater, 12 A. & E. 767, 772. 476 PAKKES V. SMITH 15 Q. B. 310. the authority with proper caution. In th......