Richardson v Leslie
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 08 June 1848 |
| Date | 08 June 1848 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 136 E.R. 1297
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
S. C. 6 D. & L. 91; 17 L. J. C. P. 324; 12 Jur. 730.
leslie v. richardson. richardson v. leslie. July 8, 1848. [S. C. 6 D. & L. 91; 17 L. J. C. P. 324; 12 Jur. 730.] The court has power under the 3 & 4 W. 4, c. 42,. s. 39, to enlarge the time, for making an award', where the arbitrator, to whom such a power has been given, inadvertently omits to exercise it. These two causes had been referred to an arbitrator, to whom was given power from time to time to enlarge the time for making his award. This power the arbitrator had several times exercised; but, at last, he by some inadvertence allowed the time for making a further enlargement to elapse, and consequently his authority was at an end. Under these circumstances, and upon an affidavit that the parties had "subsequently, in ignorance of the fact, attended a meeting before the arbitrator, at which witnesses were examined, Petersdorff, in the last term, on behalf of Leslie, obtained a rule calling upon Richardson to shew cause why the time for making the award should not be further enlarged by the court, pursuant to the statute 3 & 4 W. 4, c. 42, s. 39, until the first day of next Michaelmas term. He referred to Parbery v. Newnkam (7 M. & W. 378, 9 Dowl. P. C. 288), where the court of Exchequer held that the court had power under the act so to do. [379] Byles, Serjt., and Phinn, on a subsequent day shewed cause (a). The 39th section of the 3 & 4 W. 4, c. 42, recites that it is expedient to render references to (a) Before Coltman, Maule, and Cresswell, JJ.; Wilde, C. J. being at the Central Criminal Court. 1298 LESLIE' V. RICHARDSON 6 C. B. 388. arbitration more effectual, and enacts "that the power and authority of any arbitrator or umpire appointed by or in pursuance of any rule of court, or judge's order, or order of nisi prius, in any action now brought or which shall be hereafter brought, r by or in pursuance of any submission to reference containing an agreement that such submission shall be-made a rule of any of His Majesty's courts of record, shall not be revocable by any party to such reference, without the leave of the court by which such rule or order shall be made, or which shall "be mentioned in such submission, or by leave of a judge; and the arbitrator or umpire shall and may, and is hereby required to proceed with the reference notwithstanding any such revocation, and to make such award, although...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ting Kang Chung John v Teo Hee Lai Building Constructions Pte Ltd
...[2000] 2 SLR 609 (refd) Ian MacDonald Library Services Ltd v PZ Resort Systems Inc (1987) 14 BCLR (2d) 273 (refd) Leslie v Richardson (1848) 6 CB 378; 136 ER 1297 (refd) Minermet SpA Milan v Luckyfield Shipping Corp SA [2004] Lloyd's Rep 348 (refd) Oakland Metal Co Ld v D Benaim & Co Ld [19......
-
Wishart and Another v Fowler
...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 Legislature in stat. 24 & 25 Viet. c. 134, s. 1......
-
Coleman v The Cork and Youghal Railway Company
...Hutchinson 2 M. & Gr. 858. Andrews v. Eaton 21 Law Jour., N. S., Exch., 110. Parbery v. Newnham 7 Mee. & W. 378. Leslie v. RichardsonENR 6 C. B. 378. In re Aitken 3 Jur., N. S., 1296. Hodgkinson v. FernieENR 3 C. B., N. S., 189. Hutchinson v. Shepperton 13 Q. B. 955. Morris's ArbitrationENR......