| Volume 200, Volume 4, Page 216 View pdf image (33K) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
216 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY. ceeding for the purpose, docs not render it void. Watson on Awards, 119, 120. The objection referred to is, that the award does not make a final end and determination of all the matters Submitted, and is, therefore, not binding upon the parties. The arbitrators first find that at the death of George Culvert on the 28th of January, 1838, there was due from him to Ro- salie Carter, wife of Charles II. Carter, the aggregate gross sum of $8039 51, and to Julia Stuart, wife of R. H. Stuart, the gross sum of $7426 69, and they further find "that pay- ments to a considerable amount have been made by the said Charles B. Calvert to the said Charles H. Carter and R. H. Stuart, respectively, on account of the several and respective sums of $8039 .51, and $7426 69, since the death of the said George Calvert, for which he is entitled to a credit thereon." And they further award, "that a fair account be taken between the said parties of the balance due, if any, on account of the said respec- tive sums of money, so far as aforesaid due by the said George Calvert at the time of his death, and that the same be paid forthwith to the said Charles II. and R. H. respectively.' The amount, therefore, to be paid by Mr. Charles B. Calvert, was to depend upon the result (if an account to by taken there- after; by whom, and within what time, and upon what princi- ples, is not stated. But a reservation of a future power by the arbitrators in their award, if it affect the whole of the award, will render the award totally void. This is the case even if the reserved power is to be exercised by the arbitrators themselves, as is conclusively shown in the cases referred to in Watson on Awards, pages 104 to 108, because the award itself should close up all the matters submitted, leaving nothing open to be settled by matter subsequent. This award, however, is more obnoxious to objection, because it does not appear by whom the account is to be taken, nor within what time, nor upon what principle. In fact, the great object of the parties, which was to ascertain the amounts due by a friendly reference of the matters in difference between them to mutual friends is defeat- ed if, notwithstanding the award, an account is to be taken. It is no answer, as it seems to me, to say that there was no dispute |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery of Maryland 1846-1854
| Volume 200, Volume 4, Page 216 View pdf image (33K) |
|
Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!
|
An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact
mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.
Maryland State Archives