Case ID: johns_11/html/0133-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Stanton against Henry.
    NEW-YORK,
    May, 1814.
    Where there b0nd10of °submission to arM. trators, that the award shall tnder tiands and seals3 an a-'yard in writSi^sea?i« bad-
    IN ERROR, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. TIenry brought an action of assumpsit, on a book account, against Stanton, before a justice. The defendant set up, in bar of the . , „ , . .... , action, an award of arbitrators on a submission between the parties. The bonds of submission contained a proviso, that the award should be in writing under the hands and, seals of the ° e e arbitrators. The award produced was in writing, and signed by the arbitrators, but not under their seals; and, on that ground, it was rejected by the justice. The plaintiff’s account consisted of sundry articles, and about txvelve dollars of ihe amount appeared to have accrued since the submission. The axvard xvas not set forth; but the return stated that Henry had paid Stanton the amount of the axvard, xvhich he accepted; so that it xvould appear that the award xvas against Henry. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, for 15 dollars and 90 cents. on xvhich the justice gave judgment.
   Per Curiam.

In the case of Sallours v. Girling, in the ex chequer chamber, (Cro. Jac. 278. note,) it was ruled tha where the bond of submission provided that the award shoul be under the hands and seals of the arbitrators, an award unde their hands, but without seals, was not good. This is an autho rity in support of the decision of the justice. Independent o this, however, the judgment ought to be affirmed; for it appears that a very great proportion of the plaintiff's account aros after the submission, and so could not be affected by the award admitting it to be valid.

Judgment affirmed, 
      
       3 Vin. Air. 116. S. C. Yelv. 203. Kyd am, Awards, 262. (2d edit.)
     
      
       3 Salk. 44. Palmer, 109. 112. Pratt v. Hackett, (6 Johns. Rep. 15.] Green v. Miller, (ib. 39.)