Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1861-02-26

OftJCIAL.
Decisions OF the Snpremes Court OF the
state of Tennessee, at Knoxville, Sep
tember Terms 1850.
Brown wslker and Yoss
This was an action OF assumpsit to recover the
sum of two hu dred doll r. placed By the plaintiff
in the hauds Of Yost III der the following circum-
stances
A conversation took place between Brown and
Welker in regerd tc the purchase by Brown of a
negro man owncd by Nelker. The parties disagreed
as to the value of the slave. Brown agreed to pay
$1,000 for the slave provided he slikely" as
a certain slave belonging to him. and if not as like
~ the stipulated price was to be abated according
to the difference The parties agreed to meet at
Stegalls on certain day, and selected Kincaid and
Yost, TO determine the eontroverted matter of fact
between them-whether Welkers slave was as like
ly as the slave of Brown, and if not, how much
less likely he was, and the deduction to be made on
account of the difference, from the sum of $1,000
and Brown YVES to take the slave at the reduced
price. 1t was further agreed that each party should
make deposit of 5000 in money in the hands Of
Yost, which In the of either party failed to
execute the contract, was to be forfeited by him.
and paid over 70 the other by the stake holder.
The parties, together with the appointed referees
met at the time and place fixed upon. Kincad, one
of the referees was examined on the trial, and
stated that ION comforting with Yost it was mutu-
ally agreed by them that they would not decide the
Dut WOuiu uccDne 10 90 so,
and recommend the parties to settle it themselves
Mr.. Vest remarking to illness that the agreement
was made in a sort of christmas frolic, when both
parties had been drinking. Yost and witness decn-
ed to make the valuation, and never did make it,
On cross examination Kincaid stated that he was
disinclined to act in the matter because Brown had
| informed him On the way that he would not stand
to it because Welker had deceived him in his repre-
sensations as to the character of the negro, and
heard Brown refuse to 60 into it seyara times when
Al 81 ~
The proof slows that brown demanded the 5000
from ost and also from Welker. and both refused
to pay back the money. 1t was also proved that
about week after the meeting at Stegall's Brown
requested Well er to pay him the $500, or else to
let him have the slave at the price of $1,000 but
Welker refused to do either. On the part of the
defendant it proved by the witness Stegal that
''after the referees declined to decide the matter
Welker several times ten erred his negro to Brown,
who refused to take him, and said he did intend
to take him. rr
Upon this sta5e of facts was the plaintiff entitled
to recover bach the deposit?
Iii clear that the cont act not complete un-
til the matter of difference between the parties
should be settled by Kincaid and YosS who must be
regarded as arbitrators empowered to make ar
award, upon parol submission, and whose award
would have been conclusive upon the parties unless
impeaeled for causes sufficient to invalidate ar
award.
The disputed fact as to the relative value of the
two slaves to be det rmined by the referees
this an important term of the agreement, and
until this was done, no obligatory contract could
exist.
The ascertainment of the value in the stipulated
mode was act necessarily precedent to the com
pletOn of the contract consequently, if the arbira
tors of their accord. declined to act, or make
an award, the agreement was thereby put an end to
and the parties respectively were entitled to recover
back the deposit from Yost For the forfeiture o.
the deposit could only result from the refusal o.
either party to abide by the agreement after il
should have been completed by the act Of the arb
traitors fixing the value, or possibly from the vOlun
ary act of either party in revokng the authority
the arbitrators, and defeating thereby the compile
ton of the contract
The error of the charge lies in the assumption
that the expression of determination on thS
part of Brown not to stand to the agreement put
end to the contract, or was equivalent to reyoea
ton of the authority of the arbtratsrs, such was
not the legal effect
Brown had positively committed himself to the
decision of the arbitrators and could not escape
from the conclusive effect of their decision if fairly
| made.
True, he might have revoked the authority before
it was executed by the arbitrators that is before
| they acted under it. But if this were not done
neither the power nor the duty of the srbitrators
to make an award could lie affected in any way BY
the declarations of Brown that he would not abide
| his agreement Not having revoked his authori ty
| he had power over them to prevent their execu
tons Of it, and such declarations simply mug
| atory.
The award, If fairly made, would have been Just
| as operative AID binding on Brown as if no such
| declarations had been mgde From the statement
! of Kincaid, there no revocation of the authori
| ty of the arbitrators. The conclusion from the
staten ent of the witness necessarily is that the
bitrators, ACTIN. upon their own views of what wa
most proper under all the circumstances, mutual,
determined nct to eXecuts the power conferred NJ
Oh them and declined dong SO, and of this determ
nation the parties were informed. This at once pu
| end to the executory agreement Of the parties
which depended for its legal operation upon the fur
Their act of til arbitrat rs. by which the value o
the slave t. be fixed And this failing each par
| ty instantly entitled have lis deposit refund
ed In this view the sta ke-holder wrengfully pai(
/ over the money, and both he and the party
receiving it, with knowledge of the facts, are liab
| to refund it. The disnelinaton Of The arbitrator
| to act. matter from what cause is unimpOrtant
Such consideration would not of itself have AFFECT
| ed the validity of their award, If an award haG
| been made. 1t would have been sufficient that theJ
in fact did execute the pc Ter however reluctantly
| if nothing more could have been said against tn
| award.
| 1t is enough for the determination Of the case
that the arbltrGtors, in the exercise of their owl
| judgment-for reasons satisfactory to them-de
cined 10 the aHtt 0rity; to determine tn
matter referred to their acision This in lega
| effect end OF the whole agreement and entitled
| the parties to be placed III statu quo. Upon tb
facts presented to this record we think the judg
| Inent is erroneous.
| Judgment reversed. MCKINNEY.
A true copy. Teste; ". R. CAsvELI- Clerk.