Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

16 Wis. 269

Meloy v. Dougherty

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided June 15, 1862

Wisconsin Supreme Court · decided 1862-06-15

<p>A court of equity will not interfere to set aside an award, on the ground that it is void, if its invalidity will appear on the face of the papers, when any right is claimed under it.</p> <p>If the invalidity of that which is alleged to be a cloud upon a title, appears on the face of the record by which it is shown to exist, equity will not interfere to set it aside.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1862-06-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 1914

2 district · 7 state decisions

40186218701880189019001910decided

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 →

¶1By the Court,

Paine, J.

¶2This action is brought to set aside an award. The parties owning lands in common, submitted it to arbitrators to make partition. An award was made dividing the lands, and subsequently a provision was added and made part of the award, giving each party the right to enter upon the lands awarded to the other, without let or hinderance; to make, construct, cut and use such ditches, levels, or water races, through the lands of the other, as the former of said parties may deem necessary and proper for taking and draining the water off of his land and mines thereon.” The plaintiff contends that the power to make this provision was not given to the arbitrators, and that the award is therefore void. If this is so, it is a good reason why this suit should not be sustained. For the invalidity of the award, would then appear on the face of the papers, and could be shown in defense whenever any rights were attempted to be enforced under it. Hence, there is no reason for equitable interference. The same principles are applicable, that govern equitable actions to| remove a cloud from the title. If the invalidity of that which is alleged as a cloud, appears on the face of the record by which it is shown to exist, equity will not interfere. It would be idle to set in motion the machinery of the law, to nullify that which appears on its own face to be null.

¶3For this reason, the complaint was properly dismissed. The judgment is affirmed, with costs.

/16/wis/269 · .json · Public domain