Case ID: serg-rawl_6/html/0275-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Tiighman, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Eckert against Sheets.
    
      Monday, October 30.
    award of arbithe defendant ofan a<yournment made at meéüngfif he tary’s office were'appoint-
    ,g ^ ^ that shouíd be’ ¡>.pfOTe they a journ.
    In Error.
    WRIT of error to Cumberland county.
    Sheets, who was plaintiff below, entered a rule pf iion, in consequence of which both the plaintiff and defendant met at the office of the prothonotary, chose their arbitrators, and appointed a time and place of meeting. Two of the arbitrators and the plaintiff met agreeably to the appointment, but the defendant and one of the arbitrators being absent, they adjourned to meet on the following morning at ten o’clock, when the same two arbitrators and the plaintiff met again, but neither the defendant nor the third arbitrator attended. The two attending arbitrators, then appointed a third in the place of him who was absent, and, after ing sworn according to law, and haying heard the plaintiff, and examined his proofs, made an award in favour of plaintiff for 111 dollars 25 cents.
    Metzger, for the plaintiff in error.
    Carothers, contra.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Tiighman, C. J.

The objection to this award is, that the defendant had no notice of the adjourñment made at the first meeting of the arbitrators. This'objection is not good. The defendant was present at the prothonotary’s office when the arbitrators were appointed, and agreed with the plaintiff in fixing the time of the first meeting. At that meeting he ought to have attended, and has no right to say that he was ignorant of the adjournment which was then made. It was his own fault that he did not know of the adjournment, because the arbitrators have express power to adjourn from time to time, by the, act of 20th March, 1810. It is objected also, that the arbitrators had no power to adjourn before they were sworn; but the law is not so. Their oath is, that they will justly and equitably try all matters in variance submitted to them,” and it is sufficient if they are sworn before the commencement of the trial. It is the opinion of the Court, therefore, that the award is good, and the judgment should be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.