Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1897-12-10
BUT THREE OPINIONS.
nrcIsloNs HANDED DOWN YEsTER-
DAY IN A TRIO OF CASES.
TIE CITY CIRCUIT COURT AFFIRMED.
Tie Ruling in the Napier Habens
Corpus Case Sustained by the SUI
tration Passed Upon.

az the three cases decided in the SUI
rreme Court of Appeals yesterday one
was Of local interest, and in that the
CITY Circuit Court was affirmed. Follow
ng are dlgests Of the opinions
Coons VS.. Coons Reversed. Opinion by
Keith r. -. .r,,,
tration on the usual terms. Afpitrat .l,lI
fnable 10 agree and Umpire ;. CHOSEN,
I, whom J. w. G. objected, when y.
was selected. OF his selection J. W. :;
faDies that he was ever notihed, ana
here is no proof Of the fact; II does APP
lar that about / o'clock of the day on
which award was made ne was lnloIi I.s5
uat the arbitrator were IN session. - aIu
~ 4 o'clock the award was made. W me
Greatly dissatisfied. he appears 10 nave
rtenied to accept the award, and the
necessary papers were prepared WhiCh
we're not approved 10y II; =; aia tom ilr9
rs 10 the conduct Of the arbitrators, ana
thereuuon conclusion 10 resist aware
II C. q. brought covenant on aware,
and ]. W. G.. filed his bill attacking award
and enjoining the prosecution Oh 'he "c-
Answer by II. c. c. denying all equities
81 the bill. praying 10 be treated as a
Cross-bul; answer by j. w; -, anu DIli
OF J. W. c. dismissed py 'he ooui'' anu
lad: /. No man can be Invested of his
rights without the opportunity OF pSlhg
heard. and on a judgment against nun
without that opportunity the proceedings
are as utterly void as they would De II
the matter were without the lurlsdlcti0n
81 the court Bloom vs.. BurulCh, mn
a. W l20 Jurisdiction OF the cause
and parties being essential, II Is heces-
Fsry that defendant be notified in some
appropriate way Of the tendency OF the
suit II IL appear from the record tnaI
no such notice has been given, the Juug>
4 Nahl Arn
Robertson. rs Va. GIG: DORIS Admins
traitor VS.. ROhr &c, 81 Va, 5bS; StauhIoh
Perpetual Building Association VS.. IA
den - Va 30l While this rule has been
cases are not approved. The parties are
always entitled TO a hearing before arDl-
traitors. unless the hearing be waved
and II an umpire be called In the same
rule as 20 the right Of rehearing applles'
and BE waiver must be distinct and UNI
eQuivOcal If an umpire decides without
having appointed a time for hearing, ana
without giving notice 10 losing party,
The award is a nulity. The umpire as
well as the arbitrdtOrs ought TO hear ana
see the witnesses. unless there be
waiver Of that right He must pursue the
same regular course as II he were COM
mencing the case; must examine such
Witnesses as the parties choose TO pro
ouce. though examined already on the
same points by the arbitrators; ana ne
may not take the evidence. nor any part
unless there be a clear agreement IN the
submission 10 such course. The gene
Ill rule deducible from the authorities is
that where two arbitrators who diner
have authority TO appoint third, VINO
may decide between them. 1t is neces-
sary 10 inform the parties Of his appoint
IHent and give them a reasonable oppOr-
iunity 10 produce evidence before them
touching the matters in controversy. Day
vs. Hammond. 81 y. Y, 479: Elmendorf
vs.. Harris. p Wend., CPS; Salkeld VS..
Slater. y Adol. & Ellis, 767.
!. W. G. was never informed or the
appointment Of the third arbitrator, N,
ana while casually informed that the ar
btratOrs were in session the day lle
award was made the facts are insufh-
Client 10 charge him with a waiver OF an
opportunity 10 introduce witnesses in MS
behalf
3 There was no ratification Of the
award which would cure any error or
imp rfectiOn I'm IL. While J. w. G.. was
disposed al first 10 abide by IL, and pa
rtrs were drawn looking 10 its execution.
nothing was contaminated. and nothing
zone which compromised or affected the
!lsht Of II. G. G. What was done rams
lar short OF a ratification. nor does "
Invite a court to apply the doctrine OF
oiolpel.
o As TO the prayer Of the cross-bill for
IeAd. Every party in interest is before
ihe court upon a bill TO set aside an
award upon grounds which unQuestiOn-
ably give a court Of equity Jurisdiction.
"a court OF equity having obtained
jurisdiction Of the cause for the purpose
Of an injunction may decide the whole
controversy and render "A final decree
even though all the issues are legal in
l1eir nature. capable Of being tried by a
court u law. and the legal remedies
therefor are adequate" Jesus College
Fs. Bloom. 3 Atkynss Rep, 2G2; Arm
strong vs.. Gilchrist 2 John. Chan. Cases.
fl. Miller VS.. wills. decided at the pres
,nt term Of this court; Pom. Eq. Juris.,
section Z3S)
STATUTE CONSTRUED.
Napier W.. Prison Association Of Virginia.
Affirmed Opinion by Harrison, j.
Napier was convicted In the Mayors
Court Of Manchester OF a misdemeanOr,
ana was ordered 90 be placed In charge
OF The Prison Association. Appealed TO
me Hastings Court. where, on motion OF
Napier, by counsel, and by consent OF
ms aunt the court being Of opinion that
because Of his youth and other circum-
stances OF the case he was proper per-
son Tor the custody Of the Prison Ass0-
cidiOn, ordered accordingly. Napier con-
tends That ne was entitled 10 trial In
me Hastings Court. az II he had been
INDICTED therein; that he has never been
legally convicted OF any crime by said
corr and that being without parent or