84 Miss. 91 | Miss. | 1904
delivered the opinion of the court.
The oil company and Mrs. Buster had a controversy about their dealings, and agreed, in writing, to submit it to arbitra
It will be noted that this award does not, on its face, show, that the parties appeared. But certain it is that the cotton oil company was represented throughout the hearing by Mr. Landau, of the firm of Smith, Hirsh & Landau; and he, with full knowledge of the actual award, directed the arbitrators
We decline to sustain the contention that the award was void because the umpire was sworn with the arbitrators and sat with them during the taking of the testimony. The time to make that point was at that hearing, and the umpire took no part until called in by the arbitrators, when they failed to agree; and, if he had done so, there was no objection. Estice v. Cockerell, 26 Miss., 130.
We do not find in this record any evidence establishing any fraud, partiality, or unfairness. It was proper to refuse a question to an arbitrator in impeachment of his award.
Affirmed.