Case ID: binn_5/html/0518-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Barnet against Hope.
    1813. Philadelphia, Tuesday, July 6.
    A second rule of arbitration cannot be enter ed without consent of parties, until the first is discharged by order óf the Court.
    
      pHILLIPSioY the defendant, obtained a rule to shew cause, why the proceedings under a rule of arbitration in this case should not be set aside.
    The writ was returnable to July 1812. On the 30th of June 1812, the plaintiff declared his intention to. have arbitrators appointed on the 11th of July. On that day they were appointed to meet at a certain place and hour on the 20th of July; but in consequence of an arrangement between the plaintiff’s counsel, and the arbitrators, another time and place were fixed, at which the defendant refused to attend, and no further proceedings were had.
    On the 22d of Jyjy 1812, a second rule of reference was entered by the plaintiff, and served on the defendant; arbitrators were chosen ex parte on the 1st of August, and on the 8th of September, an award was filed in favour of the plaintiff, the defendant not having attended.
    
      Heatley for plaintiff.
   Per Curiam.

The Court are of opinion that the proceedings under the second rule were irregular. The plaintiff having acted under the first rule, could not enter a second until the first was discharged by order of the Court. Let the rule.be made absolute.

Rule absolute.