Case ID: h-j_3/html/0291-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Peters vs. Johnson.
    Appeal from Baltimore County Court. An action of debt was brought by the plaintiff below, (paw appellant,) against the defendant, (now appellee,) upon abond executed by the latter to the former on the 15th of April 1807, reciting that the parties had referred certain differences between them to two arbitrators, &c. and conditioned that the defendant abide by the award, to be made by the arbiiratorsj the award to be delivered to each of the parties within CO days fiom the date of the bond. The defendant pleaded, that no award was made and delivered by the arbitrators to the parties within 60 days, &<j. The plaintiff replied, that by a writing endorsed and signed by the defendant on the bond, further time was given to. the arbitrators until the 25th of Jgne 1807, to make an award,, and that the arbitrators did make an award, which was delivered to the parties before that day, This agreement and award were set forth by the plaintiff in his replication, and a nonperformance of the award averred, &c. 'the defendant demurred to the replication, and the county court ruled the demurrer good, and gave judgment for the defend-, ant. From that judgment the plaintiff appealed to this, court. 1 ' . • 1 . : . ,
    In an action on abond to submit matters to arbitration, the defendant pleaded that no award was maf'o and deliver* ed by the arbitrators to the parties» within 6o da>s, according to the condition of the bond, to t^is the plaintiff replied* that by a writing endorsed on the .bond, and signed by the defendant, further nine was g*n en to the arbitrators until, &c. to make an award, and that an award was niade & delivered before that day* The replication, on demuiTe r by the defendants ruled to be bad
    The cause was argued before Ruchanan, Earle, and Johnson, J.
    
      JJ'indev, for the Appellant,
    contended, that the action could be supported on the defendant’s bond to the plaintiff, with the agreement endorsed thereon, extending the time within which (he award was to be made.- He referred to Jenkins vs. Lace, 8 T. R. 87, and Evans vs. Thompson, 5 East, 191.
    
      Harper, for the Appellee.
    The action should have been brought on the agreement o.r on the award, but not on the bond. lie cited Littler vs. Holland, 3 T. R. 590. The. agreement gave no authority to the arbitrators to make the award, as it was signed by the defendant alone, and was therefore not binding on the plaintiff.
   judgment affirmed.