Case ID: la_17/html/0173-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mokpht, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Canty v. Beal.
    Where all the matters in the pleadings are submitted to amicable compounders, that they should pass upon and settle all accounts between the parties, their award when there has been no fraud, misconduct or extreme partiality, will be made the judgment of the court, without revision or alteration.
    Appeal from the court of the third district, for the palish of East Baton Rouge, the judge thereof presiding.
    This is an action for the settlement and balance on a partnership for carrying on the brick-malring business. The plaintiff alleges that in April, 1837, he put in six able bodied negroes, a cart and oxen, and the defendant was to furnish five negroes and his own services in carrying on a brickyard; the [283] profits arising to he on joint account. That. these negroes were employed under the management and superintendence of defendant about seven months, and their services were worth $216 per month, and the cart and oxen three months, worth $75. He alleges that defendant instead of employing said hands about the brickyard and in the manner stipulated, he had them at extra work for his own benefit and use, no way connected with the concern, t®> his damage $500, besides the value of their services. That bad the business been carried on properly and a correct account been rendered of the profits, he would have realized $2087. That defendant has refused and neglected to render an account. He prays that defendant he required to render a correct account of the partnership concerns and of the profits arising therefrom, and pay for three months’ extra work of his slaves at $216 per month; that he have judgment for $1587, the value of the services of the slaves and cart, and $500 in damages.
    The defendant pleaded a general denial; admits the partnership hut averred that the plaintiff failed to comply with his part of the contract, or agreement. He sets out the various matters involved; admits the concern mad© $1493, hut when the expenses, his services and various other charges, &c., are deducted, the plaintiff stands indebted to him in the sum of $312; according to an account annexed, for which he prays judgment with damages.
    The cause was finally submitted to amicable compounders who brought in an award of $657 97 in favor of the defendant.
    On motion to make the award the judgment of the court, it was opposed by the plaintiff on various grounds; but not attacked through fraud or any ■misconduct in the persons acting as amicable compounders; only as being grossly erroneous.
    The objections were all overruled and the award entered up as the judgment of the court, from which the plaintiff appealed.
    
      Elmn for the plaintiff and appellant.
    [284] R. ET. & A. W. Ogden for the defendant.
   Mokpht, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff sued for a settlement of accounts with defendant as managing partner of an association formed between them to carry on the business of brick making. In default of defendant’s rendering such account, it is prayed that he may be decreed to pay $1587, for the value of the services of certain negroes furnished by plaintiff to the concern, and moreover $500 as damages. The answer charges that plaintiff has failed to comply with his engagements to defendant; that he has not furnished any of the things he was bound to provide nor made any of the stipulated advances of funds to the partnership. To this answer are annexed accounts of the receipts and expenditures of the concern and of several sums due by plaintiff to defendant which the latter offers in compensation of all claims against him. He prays judgment for saeh balance as may he found due to him, and for $2000 damages for the violation of the contract on the part of plaintiff. On these pleadings, the matters in dispute were, by consent of parties and under an order of ■court, submitted to James Oooper and Daniel Barbee as amicable compounders ; and it was agreed their report should he made the judgment of the court. The referees made and returned into court in due time their award, decreeing plaintiff to pay to defendant $657 97. Notwithstanding a motion fc> set aside this award, it was homologated and made the judgment of the &mrt below. The plaintiff appealed.

It is not pretended in this case that there has been on tbe part of tbe arbitrators any fraud, misconduct or extreme partiality. It is admitted on the cantraiy that the errors complained of were honest and unintentional; hut it is said that without imputing to them the intention of so doing, yet it is evident that their award exhibits a want of due respect to common and estnb[285] Eshed rules in regard to right and wrong, and that the submission did not authorize them to pass on any other matters or accounts than those of tke partnership. The latter complaint appears to us without foundation. The private claims of defendant against plaintiff were not objected to when included in his reconventional demand, and all the matters in dispute as exhibited by the pleadings were submitted to the amicable compounders; the intention of the parties seems to have been that they should pass upon, and settle all aeeounts whatever between them. As to any errors alleged to havo been committed in this award, even were they as obvious as represented by appellant (which from an inspection of the record we are by no means prepared to admit); we do not feel ourselves authorized to inquire into them. Whatever has been honestly done in relation to the matters actually referred to the decision of the amicable 'compounders, cannot be reversed or altered by a court of justice. Code of Practice, arts. 459 and 4C0; La. Code, arts. 3077, 3096. In Davis v. Leeds, 7 La. Rep. 477, this court said, “ If parties will submit their disputes to be decided by men chosen by themselves as judges, under the appellation of amicable compounders, they must abide their judgments without hopes of having them revised by tho courts of justice, established by the Constitution and laws of the State. Such judges are not required to determine according to the strictness of the law; they are authorized to abate something of this strictness in favor of natural equity.” This, we must presume, the arbitrators have done in this case, as they stand before us acquitted of any improper or corrupt motives in rendering their award.

It is therefore ordered that the judgment of the district court be affirmed, with costs.