{
  "id": 11276740,
  "name": "TOBIAS KESLER v. DANIEL KERNS",
  "name_abbreviation": "Kesler v. Kerns",
  "decision_date": "1857-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "191",
  "last_page": "192",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "5 Jones 191"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "50 N.C. 191"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 201,
    "char_count": 2772,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.443,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.505882454708161e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5231295338067973
    },
    "sha256": "44ac4a7db6f2f2b5f6e35550176e8327bcbc0a295fa3dd0083ee16a9cc4aaff2",
    "simhash": "1:8dc58f783ae0c03d",
    "word_count": 479
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:15:56.644691+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "TOBIAS KESLER v. DANIEL KERNS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pearson, J.\nThe bond has this clause: \u201c the decision of the whole, or any two of them, shall be binding, then the above obligation shall be void; otherwise, to remain in full force and effect.\u201d\nThis, we think, is a condition for the performance of the award. That is the only way in which the decision could be binding.\nThe only pleas are \u201cconditions performed and not broken.\u201d These do not put the validity of the award in issue; so the objections urged against it are not presented.\nPeR CuriaM, Judgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pearson, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Fleming, for the plaintiff.",
      "JBoyden, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "TOBIAS KESLER v. DANIEL KERNS.\nAn arbitration bond, after providing for the submission and award, concludes: \u201c The decision of the whole, or any two of them, shall be binding, then the above obligation to be void; otherwise,\u201d &c.' It was Held, that this was a condition for the performance of the award.\nIn a suit upon an arbitration bond, the validity of the award is not put in issue by the pleas of \u201c conditions performed and not broken.\u201d\nThis was an action of debt, tried before Caldwell, J. at the Special Term, (December, 1857,) of Eowan Superior Court.\nThe plaintiff declared upon a penal bond, executed by the defendant, of five thousand dollars, with the following condition: \u201cThe condition of the above obligation is such that, whereas, the above bounden Daniel Kerns hath this day contracted and agreed to choose one man, by the name of E. J. Holmes, and Tobias Kesler, another man by the name of S. J. Peeler, and they two have chosen another man named 'George Lyerly, who, in connection with them, shall arrange all the differences and make all settlements outstanding between them, and all matters and claims of both parties connected with the mills and mill-property now in dispute, of which the said chosen parties are to decide, and the decision of the whole, or any two of them, shall be binding, then the above obligation to be void; otherwise, to remain in full force and effect.\u201d To this declaration, the defendant pleaded \u201cconditions performed and no breach.\u201d\nThe plaintiff produced, in evidence, an award signed by all the arbitrators, directing the defendant to pay the plaintiff a certain sum, and which he also proved had been demanded, but not paid. The recovery was opposed, upon the ground tliat there was no obligation on the face of the bond, that the defendant should perform the award, but only to submit to one. He also obj ected on account of the vagueness and uncertainty of the award, which he insisted created no duty or liability to be performed by the defendant to the plaintiff. Rut his Honor was of a different opinion upon both points, and so charged the jury. The defendant\u2019s counsel excepted.\nYerdict and j udgment for plaintiff, and appeal by defendant.\nFleming, for the plaintiff.\nJBoyden, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0191-01",
  "first_page_order": 199,
  "last_page_order": 200
}