Case Name: FREDERICK SPRINGER et al., Appellants, v. F. W. SCHULTZ et al., Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1884-01-19
Citations: 64 Cal. 454
Docket Number: 
Parties: FREDERICK SPRINGER et al., Appellants, v. F. W. SCHULTZ et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 64
Pages: 454–455

Head Matter:
[Department One.
January 19, 1884.]
FREDERICK SPRINGER et al., Appellants, v. F. W. SCHULTZ et al., Respondents.
Abbitbation—Joint Awabd—Costs—Estoppel. — Four parties, having each brought an action against certain defendants, made separate and distinct agreements to submit the matters in controversy to arbitration. At the hearing a common trial of the several causes was agreed upon. Damages were awarded to the plaintiffs severally for different amounts, and an award was made to them jointly for the amount of the costs. The defendants paid the damages as awarded, but refused to pay the costs. Held, (1) that it was the duty of the arbitrators to render a separate award as between the defendants and each of the plaintiffs. (2) That the defendants are not estopped from disputing the validity of the award as to costs jointly awarded against them either by consenting to a common trial, or by paying the separate sums awarded as damages.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court oí the county of Colusa.
The facts sufficiently appear in the head note and the opinion of the court.
Hart & Hart, for Appellants.
Stabler & Bayne, for Respondents.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
—Four distinct and separate submissions to arbitration were executed by the defendants on the one part, and by each of the plaintiffs on the other.
The arbitrators awarded to the plaintiffs, jointly, costs in the amount of $744.
It is clear that it was the duty of the arbitrators to render a separate award, on the submissions respectively, as between defendants and each of the plaintiffs.
The only questions are: —
First, is the award as to costs binding, because defendants assented to it by consenting to one trial, in which the rights of all the present parties were investigated] second, did they become liable for the costs, by paying to the plaintiffs separately the amount of damages awarded to each.
We do not think the defendants are estopped from asserting the invalidity of the award as to costs (on the ground that no authority for such an award was conferred by any or all oí the several submissions), either by consenting to a common trial or by paying the separate sums awarded as damages.
Judgment affirmed.