Case Name: BOSTICK v. WHITE
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1965-06-03
Citations: 240 Or. 544
Docket Number: 
Parties: BOSTICK v. WHITE
Judges: Before McAllister, Chief Justice, and Sloan, Goodwin, Holman and Lusk, Justices.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 240
Pages: 544–545

Head Matter:
Argued May 7,
affirmed June 3, 1965
BOSTICK v. WHITE
402 P. 2d 528
Lewis Hoffman, Eugene, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs were Bailey, Hoffman, Spencer & Morris, Eugene.
William P. Mumford, Eugene, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Thompson, Mumford & Woodrich, Eugene.
Before McAllister, Chief Justice, and Sloan, Goodwin, Holman and Lusk, Justices.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals from a judgment which affirmed an arbitration award adversely to defendant. The arbitration had been required by the terms of a contract between the parties. Performance of the contract had been the subject matter of the dispute. The procedure provided by ORS 33.210 to 33.340 was followed.
Defendant, in challenge to the award, claimed that the arbitrators " so imperfectly executed [their powers] that a mutual, final and definite award upon the subject-matter submitted was not made." ORS 33.320 (4). The real argument is that arbitration was not a satisfactory way to solve this dispute. Defendant would convert the award into a lawsuit and retry the whole case. This, we have already said, the court will not do. Harrell v. Dove Mfg. Co., 234 Or 321, at page 326, 381 P2d 710. That decision is a complete answer to this appeal.
Judgment affirmed.