Case ID: yeates_1/html/0196-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

William Murray against John Paisley.
    In replevin, a submission and- award between tbe parties, are evidence to prove tbe defendant’s claim to goods, but not conclusive.
    Replevin for a certain quantity of leather. Plea of property. Plaintiff replies property in himself absque hoc, &c.
    The defendant’s counsel admitted that the leather in question originally belonged to the plaintiff, but contended that on the 13th January 1787, the plaintiff and defendant submitted all disputes and controversies whatsoever between them to five arbitrators named in an arbitration bond, who afterwards on the 5th February 1787, made an award in pursuance of the submission, whereby they found that 25I. ns. 7d. was due from the said Murray to the said Paisley, and directed that Murray should give bond and security within three days thereafter for the payment of the same in three months, or in default thereof Paisley should retain the leather for his security for such payment.
    Questioned in a M., 457.
    Cited in 86 Pa., 492.
    The plaintiff’s counsel objected to the reading of the arbitration bond and award, and insisted that the same should have been pleaded, or at least that notice thereof should have been given that they would be offered in evidence, to obviate any surprise; and that if the same had been pleaded, the legality of the * award could have been properly drawn p^gg in question, which could not be affected under the L present plea of property.
    Messrs. Montgomery and Henry, pro quer.
    
    Messrs. Ki-ttera and C. Smith, pro def.
    
   Per curiam.

The evidence is certainly admissible. The defendant is at liberty under his plea, to shew either a general or special property in himself, either by bill of sale., delivery from the plaintiff, contract or otherwise, and the rule of court respecting notice cannot be applied to such a case. The defendant is not bound to give information to his adversary under what pretensions he claims the articles in question; neither is the plaintiff under such necessity. The submission and award are evidence to prove the defendant’s claim, but not incontrovertible. The plaintiff is also at liberty to shew misbehaviour or partiality in the arbitrators, and bring forward every legal exception to the submission and award.

Verdict for the defendant.