{
  "id": 11959572,
  "name": "Blackledge vs. Simpson",
  "name_abbreviation": "Blackledge v. Simpson",
  "decision_date": "1798-03",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "30",
  "last_page": "31",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "2 Hayw. 30"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "3 N.C. 30"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Super. Ct.",
    "id": 22358,
    "name": "North Carolina Superior Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 242,
    "char_count": 3416,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.307,
    "sha256": "d37beca90b2f023eba3572739150b5beebc8f3aa6a78a3ddd9a56af9de14af61",
    "simhash": "1:6d5331c844e2dbe1",
    "word_count": 601
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:25:52.833864+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Blackledge vs. Simpson."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per curiam.\nThere are two modes of excepting to awards s-one for what appears on the face of the award itself, as that it does not come up to the requisites of the law for constituting a good award ; the second is for matter extraneous, as for mis-behaviour of the arbitrators. The first and the third of these objections are of the first sort, the second of -the latter sort.\u2014 The first objection amounts to this, that the arbitrators have not passed upon all that was particularly referred to them, and if this appear upon the face of the award, it is not a good one : they have awarded that the first settlements were final \u2014 this is equivalent to saying that the settlements ought \u00f1otto be disturbed or opened, aud this they could not determine without examining .\u2018into the errors complained of, to see whether in reality there were any errors or not; ic was not necessary they should state \u2022each complaint of en or.and say it was ill loundcd ; they have staied enough to shew they have considered these complaints and over-ruledihem, acid that is enough. As to the third exception, to he sine the rule is, that an award must be mutual, \u2022but the meaning of that is, that the award ims-st be so coastrue-.-\u25a0ed as not. to leave aim, who is to pay, liable to be sued ior the \u25a0same cause for which he is awarded to pay : but here it sniff i-ently appears by looking into the bill, pleadings, reference mid award,, for what cause they order this sum to be paid, and then it follows that if he should be again sued for the same cause, he may produce these proceedings, and shew he has already <i:s-ebarched himself of these demands: It is not necessary they should have awarded any thing to be paid or done by Simpson ; the Coblers award reported by Burrow was held goodit sward-ed a sum to be paid for the first breach of the law, and this was Upon the principle that the word A - sufficiently identified the cause which was the consideration o\u00ed die payment. As to the second objection, that is for the misbehaviour of the arbitrators, and must be made out by proofs : A day was given to make o\u00ab the proof, and on that day no proof being adduced to substantiate the exception, it was oyer-ruled, end a decree passed agreeably to the award.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Blackledge vs. Simpson.\nHE bill stated several-settlements of account at different pe\u00ab -f riods,between the complainant and defendant, and balances^ struck, for which the complainant had given bonds and mortgages ; and that in each settlement there were many errors-ami-\u2022unfair items', particularizing them, and that Simpson had obtaiiy-(d judgments, and prayed that the accounts might be opened: and the errors rectified. \u2014 Simpson pleaded the account stateef, and that there were not any such errors as- the complainant aU. Tedged. The matters in dispute were referred to arbitrators,, who awarded, that the first settlements were final,,-and as to the last settlement, that the balance justly due from Bl\u00e1ckledge was-,' so much, which vras a much smaller sum than had been struck; by the parties, and this sum they awarded Blackledge to pay. Blackledge then filed exceptions to the award \u2014 the first of which was, that the arbitrators had not given any award with-respect to the errors- complained of in the bill \u2014 the second was,, that the arbitrators did refuse to receive any evidence of the \u00a1errors alledged in the bill \u2014 the third was, that the award was., not mutual."
  },
  "file_name": "0030-01",
  "first_page_order": 34,
  "last_page_order": 35
}