Stone v Phillipps
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 10 November 1837 |
| Date | 10 November 1837 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 132 E.R. 702
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
S. C. 5 Scott, 275; 3 Hodges, 302; 6 D. P. C. 247; 7 L. J. C. P. 54.
[37] stone v. phillipps. Nov. 10, 1837. [S. C. 5 Scott, 275; 3 Hodges, 302; 6 D. P. C. 247; 7 L. J. C. P. 54.] Four actions between distinct parties, and all matters in difference, were referred to an arbitrator. Among the matters in difference was a fifth action, relating to a part of the premises in dispute, of which fifth action the award took no notice, notwithstanding it had been mentioned to the arbitrator:-Held, that this omission rendered the award bad in toto. By an order of Nisi Prius, at the last Oxford Assizes, made by consent of the parties, their counsel and attornies, the jury found a verdict for the Plaintiff, in the four following causes; viz., John Stone v. William Phillips, John Stone v. George Phillips and Others, Doe dem. Richard Stone v. Elizabeth Stone and Others, and Richard Stone v. Robert Stone,-subject to the award of an arbitrator appointed " to settle these causes "*4 BINS, (N. C.) 38. STONE V. PHILLIPPS 703 arid all matters in difference between the said parties, with liberty to all other parties interested to come in within a month." .'" The arbitrator, a barrister, by his award directed how the verdict should be entered up, in each of the four causes; and after deciding upon various matters in difference between the parties, concluded by ordering that all persons who had become parties to the reference, should, upon being required, and at the cost of the party requiring it,'execute a general release of all actions and demands touching any matter which was'the: subject of any of the actions above referred, or any claim or dispute concerning -any- title .to any of the premises in question. ".Cooper obtained a rule nfei to set aside this award for want of finality in various particulars, and, among others, on an affidavit, which stated that, besides the actions above enumerated, there was an action of ejectment, for part of the premises in question, on, the demise of Eichard Stone, against Eobert Stone, which was not taken to trial, on account of some informality in the proceedings; that that action was still pending, and was one [38] of the matters in difference, but that the arbitrator, notwithstanding he.had notice of that action, had omitted to dispose of it in his award. Keating, who shewed cause, contended as to this point, that even if the award were bad in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Birks v Trippet
...Munton. [3 Bing. N. C. 874, In re Rider. So if the objection do not appear upon the face of the award, but be disclosed upon affidavit; 4 Bing. N. C. 37, Stone v. Phillips. 8 A. & E. 290, Ross v. Boards; though in such case, the award cannot be impeached, on this ground, in shewing cause ag......
- Gold Coast City Council v Canterbury Pipe Lines (Aust) Pty Ltd
-
Smith v Temperley
...the record, under 5 & G Viet. c. 122, s. 19,(a)2 the bank-[274] ruptoy law amendment act, and why the judg- (a)1 See Stone, v. Phillip*, 4 Bing. N. C. 37 ; Bird v. Cooper, 4 D. P. C. 128 ; UMen v. AiifflesKfi (Marquis), 10 Bing. 5G8; 4 Tyr. 92G ; AUchenoii v. Gicnjey, 2 Bing. 200 ; Wayward ......