Parrish v. Strickland, 52 N.C. 504, 7 Jones 504 (1860)

June 1860 · Supreme Court of North Carolina

52 N.C. 504, 7 Jones 504

WILLIAM PARRISH v. WILLIAM G. STRICKLAND.

Upon an arbitrament and award, a claim, which, was entertained and preferred in good faith, though not strictly allowable in law or equity, was Held to be a good foundation for an award, and recoverable in an action of assumpsit on such award.

(The case of Findlay v. Ray, 5 Jones’ Rep. 125, cited and approved.)

Tins was an action brought by a warrant before a j ustice of the peace, for an amount “ due by account rendered by arbitrators,” tried before Saunders, J.

The defendant had employed the plaintiff as an overseer, at the price of $125 for the year, and to find his family. The plaintiff remained in the defendant’s service eight months, and upon some disagreement occurring between them, left the defendant’s service. The particulars of the dispute is stated in the case with much particularity, from which, it would seem, that the plaintiff was afraid that he would owe, upon a settlement, 35 or $40. At length, the parties agreed to leave the matter to two arbitrators, who were present, before whom they produced their books and opposing charges. After an adjournment, as to an item of plank, they finally awarded in favor of the plaintiff $34,85.

It seems from the case stated, that the Court below permitted the parties to go into the original grounds of the controversy, and at the request of the defendant’s counsel, charged that the plaintiff could not recover for the whole $125, unless the defendant was in fault and failed to furnish the necessary provisions, but that they might consider what took place between the jjarties after the plaintiff left the defendant’s service, which would “ aid them in determining the question, liow the plaintiff came to leave the defendant’s employment, and whether the plaintiff or defendant was in fault.”

Under these instructions, which the defendant excepted to, the jury found the amount awarded, and after judgment, the defendant appealed.

Miller and Rogers, for plaintiff.

A. M. Lewis and K. P. Battle, for defendant.

Manly, J.

This was a warrant, for the amount of an award, which had been made between the parties, with respect to a balance due upon a contract, set forth in the case, which award was the result of an arbitration consented to by the parties.

Without going into a consideration of the question that was chiefly discussed below, of whose fault it was that the original contract was not fulfilled, we think, from the facts stated in the case, that the defendant is liable in “ indebitatus assumpsit” upon the award made.

There is a dispute about unsettled matters of account. The parties agreed to refer it, (which is evidenced by their presence and conduct at the trial.) The arbitrators made ail award and announced it to the parties. The promise to pay what might be awarded, will be obligatory, without establishing a legal demand as a consideration. It might be conceded, without breaking the force of this conclusion, that the plaintiff’s claim was of a nature not to be enforced by any legal or equitable proceeding, yet, if it was entertained and preferred in good faith — made the subject of negotiation and arbitrament, then an express promise to pay the sum, which might be awarded, would be binding, and might be enforced. This seems to be the case before us. Findlay v. Ray, 5 Jones’ Rep. 125, is believed to be in point and decisive.

We think, therefore, upon £he facts stated in the case, that ■the plaintiff was entitled to recover, according to his demand, the sum Awarded by the arbitrators.

Per Curiam,

Judgment affirmed.