{
  "id": 5319465,
  "name": "Arthur Pritchard v. Martin Daly",
  "name_abbreviation": "Pritchard v. Daly",
  "decision_date": "1874-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "523",
  "last_page": "525",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "73 Ill. 523"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "19 Ill. 415",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        441739
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/19/0415-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "25 Ill. 361",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        443557
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/25/0361-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "3 Scam. 428",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Scam.",
      "case_ids": [
        2468837
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "458"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/4/0428-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 260,
    "char_count": 3746,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.529,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.5338229306134138e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6716225540562404
    },
    "sha256": "022c937f8161d3f455b8a11555d2b58a73c9e227e9253b8d370edde3fb44ae7a",
    "simhash": "1:8f2795745033b7fc",
    "word_count": 634
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:27:08.421353+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Arthur Pritchard v. Martin Daly."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Breese\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nThis was an action of trespass, brought before a justice of the peace of Marshall county, by Martin Daly, against Arthur Pritchard, to recover damages for injury to plaintiff\u2019s crops by the stock of defendant, which resulted in a judgment for the plaintiff for fifty dollars. On appeal by the defendant to the circuit court, the cause was there tried by a jury, and a verdict rendered in favor of the plaintiff for thirty-five dollars, upon which judgment was rendered, to reverse which the defendant brings the record here by writ of error.\nThe only question of any importance raised by the plaintiff in error is, can a party who has submitted his case to arbitration, and he himself has performed the award, bring his action against the other party on the original cause of action, and recover?\nThese parties were neighbors, and their crops subject to depredation by the cattle of each, which occasioned law suits. The matters in dispute between them, arising out of these depredations, were submitted to the arbitrament and determination of three persons chosen by themselves, who, without hearing the case of plaintiff, or passing upon his claim for damages, awarded, in favor of plaintiff in error, the sum of fifty-two dollars. This award the defendant in error paid, and then brought this action.\nThe right of recovery, on his part, is \u00a1haced on the ground that the arbitrators did not take into consideration the plaintiff's claim for damages, though urged so to do by the plaintiff, nor did they hear any evidence in his behalf, they supposing they were to consider only the damages done by Daly\u2019s cattle to Pritchard, although all matters in difference had been submitted. That an action, under such circumstances, can be maintained, has been often .held by this court, and is not questioned anywhere. McDonald v. Bacon, 3 Scam. 428; Ballance v. Underhill, id. 458.\nThe arbitrators had full notice of plaintiff\u2019s claim, but did not pass upon it, and, as to it, the award has no effect. Whetstone v. Thomas, 25 Ill. 361.\nAn examination of the testimony shows clearly, that at the meeting of the arbitrators, the plaintiff made his claim to damages, which they did not consider; and this is proved by the arbitrators themselves, who are competent witnesses for such purpose. 3 Phil, on Ev. 82.\nThis is in no sense an impeachment of the award. Spurck v. Crook, 19 Ill. 415.\nAs to the objections to the instructions, the first for plaintiff is not correct, but the testimony is so full and conclusive that the plaintiff\u2019s claim was not adjudicated, that it bould not have done the defendant any injury.\nThe term \u201c explained,\u201d as used in the second instruction, was not applicable, nor was there any attempt to explain the award by parol; consequently no harm was done by its use.\nWe see nothing objectionable in the other instructions for plaintiff. As to those of the defendant, they were properly refused.\nThere being no error in the record, the judgment must be affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Breese"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Barnes & Muir, for the plaintiff in error.",
      "Messrs. Bangs & Shaw, for the defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Arthur Pritchard v. Martin Daly.\nArbitration\u2014when, party may sue upon original cause of action after award. Where two neighbors submit their respective claims for damages growing out of depredations upon each others crops, by their cattle, respectively, to arbitrament, and the arbitrators only consider the claims of one, and award him damages, and refuse to consider or hear evidence as to the claims of the other, the latter may pay the award and then maintain a suit upon his original claim.\nWrit op Error to the Circuit Court of Marshall county; the Hon. John Burns, Judge, presiding.\nMessrs. Barnes & Muir, for the plaintiff in error.\nMessrs. Bangs & Shaw, for the defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0523-01",
  "first_page_order": 523,
  "last_page_order": 525
}