Turner v Dr. Rose
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1756 |
| Date | 01 January 1756 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 96 E.R. 1032
COURTS OF KINGS BENCH
turner agt. dr. rose.-K. B. An award, in which no partiality appears, is not to be set aside. Mr. Burrell came now to shew cause why an attachment should not go against the doctor for non-performance of an award : and the reason he went upon was, that the arbitrators had awarded that the sum of £12 should be paid to Turner, and also £40 * In p. 250. 1KENY. 391 NOTES OF CASES IN K. B. ETC. 1033 for his costa, in bringing the cause down to trial: whereas, he alleged, that the Master would inform, that the necessary costs could not exceed half that sum. To shew that the Court would set aside awards, (as well as verdicts by juries, who are constitutional judges of damages,) for the excessive sums awarded, he cited 3 Chanc. Rep. 76. 2 Vern. 76. [394] Mr. Norton, being about to reply, Lord Mansfield, C.J., said, it was very clear that the parties had made the arbitrators judges of their disputes, and therefore he could not see how their award...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
CH Ltd v F
...1 K.B. 711; [1951] 1 All E.R. 268. (16) Top Shop Estates Ltd. v. Danino (C.)UNK(1984), 1 EGLR 9, distinguished. (17) Turner v. RoseENR(1756), 1 Keny. 393; 96 E.R. 1032, considered. (18) Vancouver (City) and Brandram & Henderson of B.C. Ltd., ReUNK(1960), 26 D.L.R. (2d) 655. (19) Walford, Ba......
- Eastcheap Dried Fruit Company v N. v Gebroeders Catz