Case ID: lock-rev-cas_1/html/0029-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Elmendorf v. Harris, 23 Wend. 628.
    In S. Ct 5 Wend. 516.
    
      Award; Umpire.
    
    The Supreme Court held, in a suit against a surety in an arbitration bond, that where a submission in writing had been made, (before the Rex'. Stat.) that it was competent for the party prevailing in the arbitration, to show an appointment of an umpire by parol, unless the submission required it to be made in writing; and that no notice of hearing was necessary to the losing party.
   The Court of Errors, held, however, that this award, made without notice of the hearing before the umpire to the losing party was void ; that an umpire cannot be appointed by parol, where, as in this case, it was expressly agreed, that the submission should be made a rule of Court under the statute:—though it would be good if it had been a mere common law arbitration. Per Chancellor, W. delivering the opinion of the Court

Judgment reversed 18 to none.