{ "id": 1333995, "name": "Couch v. Harrison", "name_abbreviation": "Couch v. Harrison", "decision_date": "1901-02-02", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "580", "last_page": "584", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "68 Ark. 580" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "10 Pick. 275", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Pick.", "case_ids": [ 2014253 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/mass/27/0280-01" ] }, { "cite": "57 Ark. 459", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1324645 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/57/0459-01" ] }, { "cite": "11 Ark. 630", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8727928 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/11/0630-01" ] }, { "cite": "24 Ark. 384", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "31 Ark. 163", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1879307 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/31/0163-01" ] }, { "cite": "25 Ark. 474", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1864580 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/25/0474-01" ] }, { "cite": "18 Ark. 317", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "3 Iowa, 66", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Iowa", "case_ids": [ 2270128 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/iowa/3/0066-01" ] }, { "cite": "90 Ga. 669", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ga.", "case_ids": [ 367890 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ga/90/0669-01" ] }, { "cite": "32 L. R. A. 740", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L.R.A.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "40 Atl. 661", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "27 Md. 401", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Md.", "case_ids": [ 1762338 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/md/27/0401-01" ] }, { "cite": "82 Ala. 568", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ala.", "case_ids": [ 3323276 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ala/82/0568-01" ] }, { "cite": "10 Ark, 657", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "29 Ark. 597", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1882948 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/29/0597-01" ] }, { "cite": "5 Ark. 373", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8727343 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/5/0373-01" ] }, { "cite": "82 Ky. 391", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ky.", "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 465, "char_count": 9779, "ocr_confidence": 0.477, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.0216401562957062e-07, "percentile": 0.5454053498871942 }, "sha256": "7788b6895375fb1d7b0db36de50a59545a5849acb51c555a27f75923371a88ed", "simhash": "1:df6ff349194c05d5", "word_count": 1731 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:45:47.755579+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Battle, J., did not participate." ], "parties": [ "Couch v. Harrison." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Hughes, J.,\n(after stating tbe facts.) The appellant in Ms motion for a new trial says that the court erred in, its written instruction to the jury of its own motion. That instruction is as follows: \u201cIf you find from the evidence in this case that the plaintiff and defendant mutually agreed to submit a matter in controversy between them to arbitrators, and to abide by their award, and that said arbitrators did meet under said agreement and render an award, you should find for the plaintiff. You are further instructed that if you find from the evidence that after said arbitrators had the matter under investigation they adjourned, and notified the parties that they could not agree and had adjourned, then your verdict should be for the defendant, unless you further find from the evidence in the case that the parties afterwards agreed to submit to and abide by any award they might render. You are further instructed that it is not necessary that the evidence show that the parties plaintiff and defendant actually agreed in so many words to submit the matter in controversy to and abide by the award, but such agreement may be inferred by you from the acts and conduct of the parties plaintiff and defendant, and all the facts and circumstances introduced as evidence must show that both parties agreed to submit the matter and to abide by the award; for, if one of the parties agreed, and the other did not, the verdict should be for the defendant. You are further instructed that the plaintiff is required to make out his case by a preponderance of the evidence.\u201d We do not think there was any error in this instruction, and there was evidence upon which it seems to have been based. It was a question of fact whether there was a submission to arbitration by the parties; and whether there was an arbitration and an award, were questions of fact which were submitted to and determined by the jury, and there is evidence upon which their verdict was doubtless based.\nThe appellant complains of the first instruction given for the appellee, which reads as follows: \u201cIf the parties agreed to submit and did submit a dispute to arbitration, and an award was made, the law will imply that there is an agreement to abide by such award.\u201d If this is not the law, it would be a farce to agree to arbitrate a matter. In this case there was an express agreement to abide by and perform the award alleged in the complaint, and it seems to be borne out by the facts and circumstances, though denied in the answer.\nThe defendant asked the court to declare in his second instruction \u201cthat the arbitrators must hear the parties in each other\u2019s presence,\u201d which was refused, and defendant (appellee) complains at this. If the parties demand this, it is their right, and it would be error to refuse it; but there are few rights a party may not waive, and if he is notified, and has the opportunity to be present, it is his own fault if he is absent, and he cannot take advantage of it. The testimony here tends to show that appellant was voluntarily absent when the arbitrators acted in the evening. The evidence tends to show that he was consulted from time to time, while the arbitration was going on, and made no objection. \u201cIt has been held that a party after receiving notice may stay away, without vitiating the award.\u201d 2 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, (2d Ed.), 655n.; Whitlock v. Ledford, 82 Ky. 391.\nThe third instruction asked by the appellant and refused by the court is as follows: \u201cWhen arbitrators have once acted, either by making an award, or declining to do so, their power ceases, and they have no power to re-investigate the matter, unless requested by both parties to do so.\u201d It seems, under the circumstances of this case, that this instruction would have led the jury to understand that theie could be no resubmissiou of the case except by express agreement of the parties in so many words. Besides, the court had instructed upon this phase of the case in the written instruction given of its own motion. The fourth instruction asked by defendant was that the court take the case from the jury. There was no error in refusing these instructions.\nThere is no reversible error in the court\u2019s declarations of law. The other matters in the case are questions of fact, which were submitted to and decided by the jury, and we caunot say that the evidence does not support their finding.\nBut objection is urged to the verdict and the judgment because the verdict is general, and does not specify the amount of the jury\u2019s finding, and the judgment is for $247,38 and 6000 staves, whereas the complaint did not demand any judgment for the staves, but only for the $247.88. It seems the plaintiff had the staves in his possession, and, as no demand was made for them or their value, no judgment should have been given for them, and the judgment of the court is so modified as not to include them. As to rendering judgment for $247^38 when the verdict did not specify the amount of the jury\u2019s finding, we think there is no reversible error in this case. As a rule, .the verdict should be for a certain amount named in it. But this was a suit to enforce an award of arbitrators, whose award was in favor of the appellee here for $247.88. There was no uncertainty, therefore, in the general verdict. It was easy, as shown by the record, to ascertain the amount of the verdict. \u201cThe maxim, Id cerium est quod cerium reddi potest, is readily applicable to verdicts.\u201d 28 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, (1st Ed.), 300, and cases cited.\nThe judgment is affirmed.\nBattle, J., did not participate.", "type": "majority", "author": "Hughes, J.," } ], "attorneys": [ "Murphy & Mehaffey, for appellant.", "J. J. Beavers and J. H. Carmichael, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Couch v. Harrison.\nOpinion delivered February 2, 1901.\n1. Arbitration \u2014 Proof of Award. \u2014 It is not necessary,' in a suit to enforce an award in arbitration, that the evidence show that the parties agreed in so many words to submit the matter in controversy to arbitration and to abide by the award, but such an agreement may be inferred from the acts and conduct of the parties. (Page 582.)\n2. Same \u2014 Right of Party to be Present. \u2014 While a party to an arbitration is entitled to be present at the hearing, he may stay away after receiving notice of a meeting of the arbitrators, without vitiating the award. (Page 583.)\n3. Verdict \u2014 Sufficiency.\u2014Where an award fixed the amount of defendant\u2019s indebtedness to plaintiff, a general verdict for plaintiff in a suit to enforce the award, without naming the amount to be recovered, is sufficiently certain. (Page 584.)\nAppeal from Saline Circuit Court.\nAlexander M. Duffie, Judge.\nSTATEMENT BY THE COURT.\nThe appellant and the appellee agreed to submit to arbitration matters of difference between them that grew out of a contract between them for the making of staves. It is not shown that the agreement for arbitration was in writing, nor are the particular terms upon which the arbitration was to be made set out or shown, except that the matter to be arbitrated was the settlement of a disputed account between them. The complaint alleges that the plaintiff in this suit and the defendant selected as arbitrators A. R. Tomlinson and Fred W. Bush, \u201cto arbitrate and make final award\u201d in the matter submitted to them to determine, both plaintiff and\" defendant agreeing each with the other to stand to, abide by and perform the award of said arbitrators. On the 31st of January, 1898, the same day of the agreement, the arbitrators met in the forenoon, and endeavored to reach an agreement, but could not, and so announced to the parties, and adjourned. Upon the suggestion of the appellee, Harrison, the arbitrators met in the afternoon, and reached an agreement, and made an award between the parties, awarding to Harrison, the appellee, $247.88 and 6000 staves.\nUpon this award Harrison sued the appellant, Couch, and demanded judgment for the $247.88, but made no demand in his complaint for the staves, or the value of them. The appellant answered the complaint, denied indebtedness, denied the submission to arbitration, and denied there was any arbitration or any award, and set up a counterclaim, to which a demurrer was sustained, to which he excepted.\nA trial was had before a jury, and the following general verdict was rendered by the jury: \u201cWe, the jury, find for the plaintiff.\u201d The verdict, it will be observed, does not specify the amount for which they found. Upon this verdict the court gave judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $247.88 and for 6000 staves. The appellant, having saved his exceptions, filed a motion for a new trial, which being overruled he excepted and appealed to this court.\nMurphy & Mehaffey, for appellant.\nIt was error for the court to render judgment on a verdict which did not fix the amount of the recovery. 5 Ark. 373; 29 Ark. 597. The award was void because appellant was not present at the hearing. 10 Ark, 657; 1 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 685; 82 Ala. 568; 27 Md. 401; 126 111. 250. Either party could revoke the submission at any time before award made. 40 Atl. 661; 32 L. R. A. 740. A departure from the strict rules of dealing equally with both parties will be fatal to the award. 90 Ga. 669; 3 Iowa, 66; 112 N. Car. 845.\nJ. J. Beavers and J. H. Carmichael, for appellee.\nThe jury found that the parties agreed and did submit to arbitration, and that the arbitrators found a specific amount due appellee. Hence there is no uncertainty in the verdict. The balance found by the arbitrators was equivalent to a balance struck by the parties on au account stated. 1 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 674. There was no error in\u2019the court\u2019s charge on this point. Id. p. 656. The verdict is sustained by sufficient evidence. 1 Crawf. Dig. p. 146; 18 Ark. 317; 25 Ark. 474; 31 Ark. 163; 24 Ark. 384; 11 Ark. 630; 57 Ark. 459. Appellant is estopped by acquiescence to complain of the resubmission. Laws. Cont. 8, 9; 10 Pick. 275." }, "file_name": "0580-01", "first_page_order": 598, "last_page_order": 602 }