Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

148 Mass. 367

Doherty v. Doherty

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided January 4, 1889

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1889-01-04

Motion to accept and confirm an award of arbitrators. The case was submitted to the Superior Court, and, after the entry of an order to reject the award, to this court, on appeal, on an agreed statement of facts, in substance as follows: The agreement of submission, which was dated October 14, 1887, provided for three arbitrators, “ the award of whom, or a majority of whom, being made and reported to the Superior Court for the county of Suffolk aforesaid within fourteen days…

Relies on Short v. Pratt · Crofoot v. Allen · Blodgett v. Prince

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1889-01-04

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently May 1927

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions

2018891890190019101920decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Field, J.

¶1The' first award reported to the Superior Court was recommitted for a specific purpose. Upon recommitment, two of the arbitrators signed a new award, and returned it into court, but the third arbitrator, “ being absent from his home, did not receive the notice of the meeting of the arbitrators until after the award was returned to the court, was not present at said meeting of said arbitrators, or any other meeting of the arbitrators, after the filing of the first award.” It thus appears that the last award, which was the only award before the Superior Court when it passed the order appealed from, was not the result of deliberation by all the arbitrators, and that one of the arbitrators had no opportunity to consider it. Although the submission provides that the award of the majority shall be final, yet all must meet in consultation upon the decision, unless, indeed, one refuses after notice to attend, because if the absent arbitrator had been present “ he might have drawn his brethren to a different opinion.” Carpenter v. Wood, 1 Met. 409. See Short v. Pratt, 6 Mass. 496. See also Blodgett v. Prince, 109 Mass. 44; Campbell v. Upton, 113 Mass. 67; Cumberland v. North Yarmouth, 4 Greenl. 459; Crofoot v. Allen, 2 Wend. 494; Morse on Arbitration and Award, 151, 152.

¶2Without considering the other objections, the order rejecting the award must be Affirmed.

/148/mass/367 · .json · Public domain