The Hawaiian gazette., 1883-04-25
Aamaiian 0azrtte.
Suv-sne Csz-s 81 The Hawaiian 1si@1ass---
Arrsi Tern. 1SSS In Ba2eS-
1o, Nrnnrll v-, F. 7, LsSr"AS,

ll,fzion u the Cerrt By AcStle. J.
rhz, essen esr,es here IN Wris e ErrvT
frvr, a fr,f --1ers n f1vCr CT : Gsn1rre- Ct the
ssfsr,iIns CT the plaintiffs complaint.
The returussbcvvs that the actica : In as
sY-rlus5s urcn an award ard based urcE n
uris.su agreement 60 suhE1it cersain dlfercnces
a-l iisrr-s between the parties hereto %
The ar6is-ameus ard Determination CT Al
srtisras1r uaue,i ard 70 ee borrd By his de-
cisiou. and the complaint alleges, that his
decision vas irly -ilde ard Published vhe-e-
~ hs found a certain Szm Due trCm the
6sfsaGtns Co the ulaintif EPou Said matters In
difference which Defendant refused % pay on
ismard -n,3 she plaiusiT asked iudyzsar.
The defendant tv Lis former a-iCr=ey, NJ.
Daxiiscu. 5smu-re6 q the compliant IS me- IN
ecmpl1ance With the s;a.n.c euncsrniag ar
bisraticus, and Is iasuSicieu- Otherwise 10
authorize j recovery
The objection lAas The Submission and
award ogght 70 have been attached 70 The CON
vl,in- and the sur trcs-ks under Section lle0
Of tie Code. we think not vel EalSen.
he agreement made rests II two papers, the
as &C which a. pleaded i based On unliGui3-
a-ed demands and The second refers - the
first. and l. not complete IN ieselt We think
the sEit vas properly brought n lss11Psit.
Tue agreement - pleaded undoubtedly
u.Cgld have been valid as ccuucn law. and u
constitutes q plai1 and clear agreement which
cg-al to ia enfJrced here unless che Seatr.s
concerning ,rbitratious l0rbids It.
This Szasg1e provides specially l0u 1ruItra-
tens Eav be entered iuZC and enforced by
certain Fixed methods, and provides that
unlgss tie S-aaAe be fcllcEet such aroitra-
riCus ca1nc. be enforced B1s The Stasuts
does not exclude IN terms ether methods Ct
submission % arbitration
II BC-ustie Is. Whitney, q y \. E., P1yes
t4S-g- the CCarr held. under stz-u.s similar
% Cur cwu. that The provisions Ct such J
St1uts ve-u a cuuGlltIve merely, uCs szclu-
ssvs- ard shat an award pursuant 90 a sub
-i-si1u. uh5cl wUzl[ have Been valit a.
common law, bus which did nee conform to
the scuss would suppors an acricu-
This bo.diug.1i the highest Court in Nsv
York = In conformity With The holdings u
several other cases In ghIs STATE
It Is also followed ard endorsed " the
decisions Of shc Courts IN England and II
-arv 1f tde highest Courts IN the C1I-sc
/ Slllss. as shown ~ the citations Of the de-
I fsndlut's cgu-seL
la the case CT BulsCu -. LcEnes, - y Y.
| E. G. So. cited By the Chief Justice IN his
cui1icu below, tins doctrine vas supposed %
| d gverruieL On closer szanlination Of that
| case We are convinced thIs such vas ucs the
7 n1snfi1u of the C0urt. That clse held only
TIA. 70 . case where three arbitra-1Cs were
/ appointed tle Slllrta OF IrLiErIrlCus applied
| 81 all cases whe-he- made at c0umCu law or
suecia-Tv under tue Statute. IN It's provision
dat an the llItra.-rs mus meet and hear The
matters IN controversy. though two only
li.zhl make the award In tAa5 case only
| two Of the arbitrat1rs met and the defendant
vas not present aud did not sanction their
acts Tbs Court decided that these facts
/ i1-aIiiatsd she award which uguld have been
| zucG d ccmmcG law. but decided 10 ether
sCiuE. and the ruling in q, y I r., sui
! remains intact IN rhas STATE except a. 50
reasonably modified.
In Massachusetts, only ID the cases seem %
/ bald lhlE submissions I. common law would
b. void Frs case Of Desrieif - Arms, q
| Pick. lSu-5-t. cited for the defendant Is ]
case where the parties strictly followed the
Ssatuts except IN one particular, and the Court
] held this fatal But Il may be inferred from
| the language used BY the Court CO pages ISL
| ( that If the agreement 70 subuil uluIfsstly
/ Gii not intend o follow the SlItuts, such
/ agreement Z clear and definite might be bLnd-
/ ing co the parties
I There l. nothing pleaded n this case snow
/ t1- an intention % follow the Statute On the
/ ccnt-ury the Euh1Iissi1u IS pleaded IpPel-s &c
/ be outside Of chat Statute
In analogy To the body Of the decisions
[ made elsewhere, We hold thls the complaint
I AYERS 4 cause Of acton
We % not think public policy requires q
/ decision liar the Statute Of affiliations shall
| he always f1IIoUsi-
Il parties having CllI41Illt=t money 1It-
/ fsrguces should meet and lgrgs 70 settle, ana
/ tlerauPon oae should deliver TO tie other bis
/ CtligaJi1u f1r the amount agreed uPcu- tha
/ GuIigati1E wuGId be enforceable and cuuclI-
sivs On both parties. ans only fraui and his
/ take could defeat IT,
We think reason sayss -a1E unless z-pressl J
/ f1rbi,i,ieu By the Ilv, the same parties sh1Ulc
haze tie right 70 agree thaE whatever sum AZ
arbizrat1r determines that either Of the par
I ties ewes the other, shall De the suEI ius iron
I him
We link tie decision must be rsysrssl
with liberty 70 the defendant to answer II
| twenty days
E u Hatch aud L. Prgs51u i1C plaintiff A
[ :. HIrtweli FIR defendant II error
Al