Court Opinion

ID: 8635178
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-24 19:44:02.113212+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:55:54.282438
License: Public Domain

LOWELL, District Judge.-
It is well settled that a submission to three, without more, does not authorize an award by two only. Towne v. Jaquith,6 Mass. 46; Green v. Miller, 6 Johns. 39; Dalling v. Matchett, Willes, 215. It makes no difference in this respect that the submission is made a rule of court, because the rule is founded upon and must strictly follow the agreement of the parties. It follows that I cannot recommit the report for further action by the remaining arbitrators.
It is equally clear that the award which has been made cannot be accepted. It does not decide the rights of the parties, but is in its nature and on its face a mere preliminary finding, — what we should call an interlocutory decree, — and amounts only to an order or direction to the parties to.do certain acts and prepare certain evidence before the next hearing. In legal language, it is not final. The question of damages forms an essential part of the submission, and both parties are entitled to the judgment of their chosen tribunal upon it, as much so as upon the preliminary point of the responsibility of the respective parties.
For these reasons I must order that the rule of reference be vacated, and that the claimants file their answer within a reasonable time. The objection that they ought to have answered sooner cannot prevail, because the agreement to refer, which was filed very early in the case, took away the necessity for an answer, and left the referees to be the judges of what should be required in the way of pleadings, and it is not until the rule is set aside that an answer is needed or could properly have been received. It must of course, be filed without terms. Order accordingly.