Court Opinion

ID: 9670063
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:13:43.840505+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:02.058253
License: Public Domain

*505aThe following memorandum was filed March 6, 1953:
Brown, J.
(on motion for rehearing). Respondent Pick has filed a motion for rehearing. On due consideration we remain of the opinion that while the parties did not specify whether their arbitration was under the statute or at common law, the arbitration proceedings determine it to be statutory. The decision on the appeal therefore remains unchanged and the motion for rehearing must be denied.
Pick, however, has called it to our attention that our opinion states that submission of a controversy to arbitration works a discontinuance of a pending action at law unless the submission provides for a stay rather than a discontinuance, citing Sohns v. Sloteman (1893), 85 Wis. 113, 116, 55 N. W. 158, and we added that there was no such provision in the present case. Sec. XIII of the submission in fact recited:
“That the action pending in the circuit court of Washington county shall be dismissed, without costs to either party, upon the application of either party hereto after the board of arbitration has made its findings under paragraph h above.”
In the light of this provision our statement that the action was discontinued was wrong;.it was stayed for a specified purpose pending a certain event. Pick submits that the parties wished to keep the action alive so that the statute of limitations would not run against the claim and counterclaim of the parties if the arbitration proved abortive. The provision does not affect the arbitration proceedings but we were wrong in stating that the original action at law was discontinued by reason of the submission.
By the Court. — Motion denied.