Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

25 Ill. 361

Whetstone v. Thomas

Illinois Supreme Court

Decided January 15, 1861

Illinois Supreme Court · decided 1861-01-15

This was an action of debt on award. The second count of the declaration was as follows: And also for that whereas, the said plaintiff and the said defendant, heretofore, to wit, on the twenty-third day of August, A. D. 1859, to wit, at the county of Adams and State of Illinois, executed their certain other writing obligatory, the said plaintiff by the signature of John Thomas, and the said defendant by the signature of Abijah Whetstone, sealed with their seals respectively,…

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1861-01-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently October 1928

9 state decisions

301861187018801890190019101920decided

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 →

Breese, J.

¶1In all cases arising on awards where the question is, whether or not the arbitrator has exceeded his authority or the contrary, that question must depend upon the intention of the parties, to be drawn from the words-of the instrument of submission. It is a general rule unless the arbitrator makes his award of all matters submitted to him, the award is void, meaning only, where the submission is of several specific things. But where the submission is of all matters in difference, or of all disputes, without specifying them, the arbitrator need only make his award as to the things of which he had notice. If there are other things in controversy, not included in the award, but of which the arbitrator had not notice, yet the award is good. If, however, the arbitrator does not make his award of all matters within the submission of which'he has notice, the award is void in toto. Watson on Arbitration and Awards, 121.

¶2It will be perceived in this case, the submission is not of several specific things, or of all matters in difference, but of “• divers disputes and controversies,” without specifying the nature or character of any one of them.

¶3The intention of the parties, as we gather it from the language of the submission, is manifestly that either party may bring before the arbitrators any specific matter of dispute and difference, or all matters of dispute and difference between them, and that they shall decide upon such, and none other; hence the necessity, in order to resist the award, of alleging in the pleas, that the arbitrators had notice of other matters of difference, which were properly brought before them, specifying them.

¶4In neither of the pleas is it alleged that the arbitrators had notice of any other matter in dispute between the parties, than the state of their several accounts, and on that they have awarded fully, and that is not denied to have been a matter of dispute between the parties to the submission. If they desired a decision upon other matters, the parties should have brought them distinctly before the arbitrators.

¶5The judgment must be affirmed. Judgment affirmed.

/25/ill/361 · .json · Public domain