The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1897-12-10
SUPREME COURT CASES.
ONLY A FEW OPINIONS HANDED
DOWN YESTERDAY.
The Questions of Awards involved--Cor-
porate seal--The Case OF Napier VS.
the Prison Association.

Following are dlgests OF opinions hand
ed down by the Supreme Court Of APP
peals yesterday:
Coons VS.. Coons. Reversed. Opinion by
Judge Keith presdenD.
The parties submitted matters to arbi-
tration on the usual terms. Arbitrators
unable TO agree and Umpire 5. chosen TO
whom J. w. c. objected, when y. was
selected. OF his selection j. W. c. denies
that he was ever notified. and there ~ no
proof of the fact: it does appear that
about clock Of the day ON which award
was made. ne was informed that the
arbltrators were in session, and at 3
o'clock the award was made. While
greatly dissatisfied, he appears 10 nav
intended to accept the award, ana Tue
necessary papers were prepared whlch
were not approved by ii. {. g ana ms
counsel. Delay resulted I'm investigation
as TO the conduct of the arbitrators' auo
therefore upon conclusion 70 resist a"dtu,
IL &. &. brought covenant on award anu
i W. q. filed his bill attacking award
and enioining the prosecution Oh inc a0-
ton Al law Answer by III. I. ~ uehy-
ing all equities Of the bill. praying 10 DC
treated as a cross bill Answer by D. w
a.. and bill of j. w. c., dismissed py the
court, and appeal
Held I. No man can be diVes'ou VI nio
rights without the opportunity oil pe,hs
heard and on a judgment against MN
without that opportunity the proceeuipS9
AFRO as utterly void as they would De II
the matter were without the jurisdiction
az the court. Bloom ". Burdick, l. nm
N W. 100. Juridiction of the cause ana
n,rties being essential. IL Is necessary
that defendant be notified In some app
propriate way Of the pendency OF u'e
suit n IL appear from the record thdt no
such notice has been given, the judgment
ar decree is void. Welcher, &c -. KIDD
ertson. ~ Va, GIG, DORIS Adp w.
Rohr &c. - Va, 1863. Stanton Pefp' H.
A. l.. Assoc'n. vs.. iIaden, - Va, "Vl'
while this rule has been somewhat re-
Taxed as to arbitrations. the cases are
NOT approved. The parties are always
entitled to a hearing before aroltfatoi9
unless the hearing be waived; ana II AN
nmpire be called in, the same fuie as 10
tho right of rehearing applies, ana inc
waiver must be distinct and unequHocai
If an umpire decides without hd'lhs ap
pointed "A time for hearing, ana "ilhou.
s.xing notice to a losing party the a"aiu
Is a nullity. The umpire, as wen aS ,ne
arbitrator, ought To near ana sec '"o
witnesses. unless there be a waiVe. vi
maj right. He must pursue the same reg
mar course as il he were commencing
the case. must examine such witnesses
"a the parties choose 10 produce, thoush
examined already on the same. points Dy
the arbitrators, and he may not lahe
the evidence nor any part OF H. lioHs
the notes of the arbitratOrs unless lhete
he a clear agreement In the submlssloh ~
such a course The general RUE deuuelp'o
from the authorities IL that whele wv
arbitrators who dnffer have authority 10
appoint a third, who may DECIDE between
them Il IL necessary TO inform the par
ties OF his appointment and give them a
reasonable opportunity 10 produce eFl-
dence before them touching the matters III
controversy. Day vs.. Hammond, % - =
l79; Elmendorf VS. Harris, % Wend. o-e'
SalkeId " Slater, u Adolf * Ellis. Io'.
~ q was never informed OF the
annointmont of the thirds arbitrator, NJ
ana while casually informed that the
arhitrators were i'm session the day the
Ward was made the facts are insufficient
"a charge him with a waiver or an OPP
nortunity 10 introduce Witnesses I'D hlS
behalf. 49,. "a
Tbere was no ratification Of the award
hitch ,,,ould cure any error or imperiec-
zion In IL While j. w. G. was dlsposea AZ
ars, 10 abide by It. and papers were Draw
,ooring 10 us execution, nothing was con-
summated and nothing done when COM
nro,,Ised or affected the right OF H. =. =
what was done falls far short OF a ratiii-
cation. nor does IL invite court 10 Apply
| the doctrine Of estoppal. 80, -,
2 AS to the prayer OF the cross Oh. ~
relief Every party In Interest - Ve'o''
| the court upon bill 10 SCI "'ie1
| award upon grounds wnich uhpu'Ss',''s
| bly give a court or equity Jui's -
| "a court Of equity having obtained Jul 100
| dte.,on ~ the cause for the purpose o.
| an IN junction may decide the whole con
| ,roversv and render a final decree, ever
| thou0h all the issues are legal IN tneh
| nature capable OF being tried by cour
| ~ law and the legal remedies therefor
| are ADEQUATE" Jesus College vs.. biooh'
/ . Atkvns's Reports. 263: Armstrong vs.
| crchrist John. Chancery Cases, 81
| Miller VS.. Wills. decided at the preseh
| term of this court; | Pom. Eq. Juris.. sec
STATUTE CONSTRUED.
| Napier W.. Prison Association OF VIZ
oinIa' Affirmed. Opinion by Judge Har
| rison. ,,
| Nanier was convicted In the Mayor
4
| Court of Manchester Of o. misdemeano
| and was ordered to be placed In charge o.
| the Prison Association: appeal TO I'M
| Hastings Court. where. on motion OF IA
| nier bv counsel. and by consent or oil
| aunt. the Court being of opinion that De
| cause OF his youth and other cirenm
! stances OF the case he was a proper per
son for the custody OF the Prison 1850
| citation. ordered accordingly. Napier con
| tends that he was entitled to trial In IN
| Hastings Court as II ne nad oeen III
I dictea therein: that ne has never beer
| legally convicted OF any crime by SAT-
| Court. and that. being without parent o
guardian TO consent 10 his commitmen
before conviction. he cannot be lawfull.
| committed until after conviction.
Held: Under the act 1885. page 65s
| II was IN the discretion OF the Court 4
commit before conviction, the proviso o
| the statute limiting the court only IN cls
having, q pareR, or legal sardian; 81
-