Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

8 Serg. & Rawle 477

Hill v. Crawford

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided September 9, 1822

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1822-09-09

In Error. THE plaintiff in error, Alexander Hill, brought an acllón on the case, in the Common Pleas of Butler against Josiah Crawford, the defendant in error, which referred to arbitration. The arbitrators filed a report in vour of the defendant, and awarded the sum of four hundred and nine dollars, sixty-seven cents to be due to-him.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently September 1834

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1822-09-09

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

By the Court.' —

¶1The only question is, whether, on a scire facias on a judgment on the report of arbitrators, the suit may be carried before arbitrators without the consent of the- defendant, by virtue of the “ Act regulating arbitrations,” passed the 20th March, 1810. The words of the Act extend .to all civil suits or actions. A scire facias on a judgment is undoubtedly a civil suit; and the only plausible objection urged by the defendant is, that if issue had been joined on a plea of nul tiel record, it would not. have been proper to take the cause from the decision of the Court, and transfer it to arbitrators. The answer to this objection is, that this cause was arbitrated before any plea of nul tiel record had been put in, and whether it ever was put in before the arbitrators, we know not. It is not sufficient to say, that possibly some plea may be made before the arbitrators which it would be improper for them to decide on. A rule of that kind would abolish the arbitration system ; for there are few actions in which some matter of record may not be pleaded. In a scire facias, or action of debt on a judgment, the defendant frequently pleads payment, satisfaction, or a release. And when the cause is transferred to arbitrators *479before any plea is put in, it is impossible to say what will be the matter of dispute. There is nothing in this case, therefore, which would authorise the Court to except it from the operation of the Arbitration Act; and we are of opinion, that thejudgment should be affirmed.

¶2Judgment affirmed.

/8/sergrawle/477 · .json · Public domain