Elliot v. Hanson
William J. Elliot v. Daniel N. Hanson
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Campbell, C. J.
In this case a bond for arbitration was conditioned for the performance of an award to be made on or before the 3d day of August, 1872, at ten o’clock in the forenoon. The award was not made until the afternoon of that day, and the submission and hearing were begun after that hour. Suit being brought-on the bond it was held by the court below that no recovery could be had on it for the non-performance of the award.
*158 No question arises upon its legality between the parties, but only as to whether the bond covers it. We find no authority for disputing the correctness of the ruling of the circuit court. The point was passed upon and decided in the same way in Freeman v. Adams, 9 Johns., 115 , and Bloomer v. Sherman, 5 Paige, 575 . If the party has any remedy it must be on the award and the action of the two litigants in consenting to and taking part in the actual submission. Upon this we need not now decide.
The judgment must be affirmed with costs.
The other Justices concurred.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
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.