TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Ramish v. Marsh

ADOLPH RAMISH, Respondent, v. MARTIN C. MARSH, Appellant

Ramish v. Marsh, 172 P. 1100 (Cal. 1918)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 3, 1918
Docket
No. L. A. No. 4239. Department Two.
Judges
Wilbur
Citations
172 P. 1100178 Cal. 2171918 Cal. LEXIS 454
Headnotes
Arbitration and Award—Acceptance oe Award—Waiver oe Irregularities.—An acceptance of and payment under an award, made under a written agreement of arbitration, constitutes a waiver of any irregularities in the award.
Summary
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Wilbur

WILBUR, J.

Defendant appeals from a judgment in favor of plaintiff, based in part upon a common-law award of three arbitrators, selected to adjust the partnership' accounts of plaintiff and defendant, in accordance with a written agreement of arbitration. Defendant resists said award on the ground of many alleged informalities in the proceedings of said arbitrators. The findings are in favor of said award. It is also found that after the award, the defendant “told plaintiff to draw money from the Metropolitan Contracting Company (a corporation owned by plaintiff and defendant) and to credit the amount so drawn as payments upon the sum due from defendant to plaintiff under and by virtue of the award of said arbitrators,” and this was done; and as a conclusion of law holds that the defendant had waived any irregularities in the arbitration.

As the arbitration was for the benefit of both parties, their acceptance of the award, and the payment thereunder by defendant to plaintiff, would constitute a waiver of any irregularities in the award. (See on this point, Matter of Silliman, 159 Cal. 155 , [ 113 Pac. 135 ];

Dore v. Southern Pac. Co., 163 Cal. 182 , [ 124 Pac. 817 ]; 5 Corpus Juris, 170, sec. 426.)

Judgment affirmed.

Melvin, J., and Victor E'. Shaw, J., pro tern., concurred.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1976: 119762026peak 1976 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Trollope v. Jeffries55 Cal. App. 3d 816 (1976)

Most recent

  1. Trollope v. Jeffries55 Cal. App. 3d 816 (1976)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Dore v. Southern Pac. Co., 124 P. 817 (Cal. 1912) 33
In re Silliman, 113 P. 135 (Cal. 1911) 7

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list