Wohlenberg v Lageman
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 06 June 1815 |
| Date | 06 June 1815 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 128 E.R. 1031
Common Pleas Division
S. C. 1 Marsh. 579.
TUN. $61. WOHLENBERG V. LAGEMAN 1031 [251] WOHLENBERG v. L AN. June 6, 1815. [S. C. 1 Marsh. 579.] Where arbitrators have power to enlarge the time for making their award, and have enlarged it, and made their award in the additional time, in order to bring the Defendant into contempt for non-performance of the award, there must be an affidavit that the time has been enlarged, that the award was made within the enlarged time, and that the Defendant has been personally served with notice of those facts.ùSemble that the affidavit for an attachment for non-performance of an award, must, contrary to the usual practice, always state the time of execution of the award.ùThough an arbitrator on a question of mixed law and fact has allowed transactions apparently illegal, as premiums of insurance on a voyage to an hostile port, the Court will not set aside the award.ùAn award that two persons shall pay a debt in proportion to the shares which they held in a certain ship, the ratio of their shares not being a subject of dispute, is sufficiently certain. Copley Serjt. had obtained a rule nisi for an attachment for non-payment of a sum of money pursuant to an award, upon the reading of the award and rule of Court for the submission, and upon an affidavit that the deponent saw the arbitrators severally sign and publish their award thereto annexed, and that their names subscribed thereto were of their hands writing, that the deponent had personally served the Defendant with true copies of the award and rule of Court recording the submission, and at the same time shown him the original award and rule, and demanded the money. Vaughan Serjt. showed cause against this rule, upon the ground that the submission by bond, on which the rule for the attachment was drawn up, was conditioned for performance of the award, so as it were made in writing ready to be delivered on or before the first day of April, or on or before such other day to which the arbitrators, or any two of them, should think fit to enlarge the time for making their award by indorsement on those presents, with power to make the submission a rule of court, which had, been done. The arbitrators reciting in their award, that by memorandums on the bonds, dated the 24th of March, and 28th of April, the time for making their award was enlarged until the first of July, proceeded to award the sum...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Taylor (David) & Son Ltd v Barnett Trading Company
...any question of arbitration under the contract would fall with it." 17 In an old case which was cited to us yesterday, the case of Wohlenberg V. Langeman, which is reported in 6 Taunton's Reports at page 251, Sir Vicary Gibbs, Chief Justice, at page 255 said: "If an arbitrator acts directly......