Rawsthorn against Arnold
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 26 May 1827 |
| Date | 26 May 1827 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 108 E.R. 583
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
S. C. 9 D. & R. 556; 5 L. J. K. B. O. S. 270.
6B.&C.629. K&WSTHORN' V. ARNOLD 583 [629] eawsthorn against arnold. Saturday, May 26th, 1827. Where a cause and all matters in difference were referred to arbitration, and a motion was made to set aside the award on the ground that the arbitrator had not decided upon certain matters in difference: Held, that it was not necessary to state those matters in the rule; inasmuch as they were specified in the affidavit upon which the rule was obtained. Where a cause is referred by order of Nisi Prius, a motion to set aside the award, must be made within the time allowed for moving for a new trial, unless a sufficient reason for delay be shewn. [S. C. 9 D. & E. 556; 5 L. J. K. B..O. S. 270.] This cause, and all matters in difference between the parties, were referred to an arbitrator by an order of Nisi Prius, which was afterwards made a rule of Court. On the 28th of December last, the arbitrator made an award, and directed that a verdict should be entered for the defendant. In this term, the Attorney-General obtained a rule nisi to set aside the award, on the ground that the arbitrator had not decided all matters in difference : and this rule was founded upon an affidavit, specifying certain matters which were alleged to have been in difference, and which were not mentioned in the award. Cross Serjt. shewed cause, and contended, that the rule should have specified those matters, according to the rule of Court made in Easter term, 2 G. 4 (a) [Lord Tenterden C.J. I think that the rule, coupled with the affidavit, sufficiently explains the nature of the objection made to the award.] Then the application is too late ; the award was made in December; judgment was entered up early in January; the motion should therefore have been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hayward against Phillips
...which the rule waa obtained identifies the paper writing, annexed to the affidavit and referred to ia the rule, as (a)1 January llth. (b) 6 B. & C. 629. See Martin v. Surge, 4 A. & E. 974. (a)3 January 12th. 6 AD. ft E. 128. HAYWARD ,V. PHILLIPS 49 the copy with which the defendant's attorn......
-
The King against The Lords Commissioners of the Treasury. Re Smyth
...allowance of 1661. per annum, and having also fully considered your whole case and conduct with reference to your proceedings (a)1 6 B. & C. 629. See Macarthur v. Campbell, 5 B. & Ad. 518, 2 A. & E. 52; Allenby v. Proudlodc, 4 Dowl. P. C. 54. (a)2 Patteson and Coleridge Js. had left the Cou......
-
Moore against Butlin
...as a motion for a new trial; Thompson v. Jennings (10 B. Moore, 110); at least if no sufficient excuse be shewn ; Rawsthorn v. Arnold (6 B. & C. 629). In Allenby v. Prmidlock (4 Dowl, P. C. 54), Coleridge J. decided in favour of the application, because other matters than those embraced by ......
-
Musselbrook v Dunkin
...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......