Case ID: scl_9/html/0217-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Johnson.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Richard M. Lockart against John Kidd.
    Where a refer* Sample, three agree, the to tile umpire in such casei9ine&ula^
    This case had, hy an order of Court, been ferred to the arbitrament and award of four persons, with power of umpirage. On the hearing, . ’ . r , . r ® „ . . , ° three of the arbitrators were of opinion that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover; but the ■" # fourth dissenting, they chose an umpire, who awarded in favour of the plaintiff On a motion to show cause to the contrary, the Court affirmed the award, and a motion is now made to reverse that decision.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Johnson.

The decision in this case was made on the authority of the English decisions, which support that position, but in the case of Powell and 'Pravilla, decided in this Court about fourteen years ago, the Court determined, that on a reference to several, an award made by the majority was a legal award, and that the concurrence of the whole was not necessary.: Three out of four in this case having concurred, the intervention of an umpire was unnecessary. I am therefore of opinion that the motion ought to be granted.

Grimké, Colcock, Cheves, and Gantt, J. concurred.

JVbii, J. dissented.