Bassett's Adm'r v. Cunningham's Adm'r
Bassett's Adm'r v. Cunningham's Adm'r, 9 Gratt. 684 (1853)
Facts
•
A sixth action of assumpsit was instituted by the appellee against the appellant individually.
•
The two actions of debt on the large bonds were consolidated.
•
The arbitrators disagreed, and the umpire made an award.
•
Issues were made up in the cases, including pleas of payment, nonassumpsit, and the statute of limitations.
•
The appellant filed exceptions to the award, which the court overruled, confirming the award and entering judgment in all cases.
•
The appellee, as administrator, instituted four actions against the appellant, as administrator, on bonds and assumpsit.
•
The six cases were referred to arbitrators, with an umpire to decide in case of disagreement.
•
The appellant obtained writs of supersedeas, assigning errors relied on in the court below.
•
A fifth action was instituted by the appellee against the appellant as surviving obligor on a bond.
Explore this Case with AI
Ask about this case, find precedent, analyze legal issues, or draft provisions. Powered by all precedential U.S. cases (10M+)
No credit card required
Key Holdings
•
The award cannot be set aside because there is no evidence on the face of the award showing on what evidence the umpire acted, and it is presumed that the arbitrators and umpire, being legally trained, would discard improper testimony.
•
The umpire did not misconstrue his authority; the submission intended for the umpire to make his own award if the arbitrators disagreed.
•
The award cannot be set aside because there is nothing on the face of the award or any paper made a part of it that can be looked to on this inquiry, and the exceptions involve matters submitted to the judgment of the arbitrators.
•
The umpire correctly decided that recovery in the two actions of assumpsit was barred by the statute of limitations.
Citations
Bassett's Adm'r v. Cunningham's Adm'r, 9 Gratt. 684 (1853)
Legal Reasoning
The court reasoned that the umpire's role was to decide the cases if the arbitrators disagreed, and he did not misconstrue his authority. The court also held that there was no evidence on the face of the award to show what evidence the umpire acted on, and it is presumed that the arbitrators and umpire would discard improper testimony. The court further reasoned that an error of judgment on the part of the umpire in regard to the facts is not ground for setting aside his award. Finally, the court held that the amount of costs to be allowed after an order of consolidation is a subject for the consideration of the court directing the consolidation and should be left to its discretion.
Outcome
The court affirmed the judgments against the appellant.
Want to Learn More About StrongSuit?
StrongSuit has advanced legal AI tools for deep insights & comprehensive analysis
No credit card required
Copyright 2026 StrongSuit AI, Inc. | All Rights Reserved