Case ID: ill_1/html/0295-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Justice Lockwood.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Nathan Cromwell, Plaintiff in Error, v. Enoch C. March, Defendant in Error.
    ERROR TO MORGAN.
    Where parties agree to submit their differences to arbitration, and agree that “ the award is to be entered of record and made a rule of court at the next term, and which award, when entered, is to have the force and effect of a judgment,” it is irregular and erroneous for the circuit court to enter up a judgment on the award.
   Opinion of the Court by

Justice Lockwood.

The facts of this case are, that March and Cromwell, having several matters of difference, agreed to arbitrate the same, and in their agreement is the following clause, to wit: “ Which award is to be entered of record and made a rule of court at the next term of the Morgan county circuit court, and which award when entered, is to have the force and effect of a judgment.” Subsequent to the making of the award, March served notice of his intention to apply for a judgment on the award, and the circuit court of Morgan county gave judgment by default, at the April term, 1829, on the award. A writ of error has been brought to reverse this judgment. Several errors have been assigned, but the court only deem it necessary to decide, whether the circuit court had jurisdiction over the case, so as to give any judgment on the award. By the “ act regulating arbitrations and awards,” passed January 6th, 1827, it is enacted that where persons are desirous to terminate disputes by arbitration, agree that their submission to arbitrate shall be made a rule of the circuit court,” and “ insert such, their agreement, in the submission, or in the condition of the bond or promise; ” which agreement, on producing an affidavit of the due execution thereof, and filing it in court, may be entered of record, and a. rule of court shall thereupon be made that the parties shall submit to and be finally concluded by such arbitration. It is further enacted, “ that where the award shall be for the payment of money only, the same being returned into and accepted by the court, judgment shall be rendered thereon for the party in whose favor the award is made, to recover the sum awarded to be paid to him, together with the costs of arbitration and the costs of court,” <fcc. It is contended that the agreement that the “ award ” shall be made a rule of court, does not bring the case within the statute. The English statute on this subject contains the same phraseology, “ that the consent expressed in the bond or agreement, must make the submission a rule of court,” and under their statute it was decided, if the agreement be to make the award a rule of court, it is not within the act. 2 Sellon’s practice, 244, cites Strange, 1178. Upon the authority of this case, the court are of opinion that the circuit court of Morgan county erred in taking cognizance of the case. The judgment must therefore be reversed with costs; In giving this judgment the court do not express any opinion as to the validity of the award. The arbitration and award will therefore stand, and the rights of the parties under them, in the same manner as if no judgment had been rendered on the award.

Breese and McConnell, for plaintiff in error.

W. Thomas, for defendant in error.

Judgment reversed. 
      
       Rev. Code of 1827, p. 64.
     
      
       See note to Chandler v. Gay, ante, p. 88.