25 Ga. 65 | Ga. | 1858
JBy the Court.
delivering the opinion.
It is quite apparent, that the argument before this Court has taken quite a different direction from what it did in the Court below. For whatever disclaimers may be made now, the question was treated by counsel on both sides, as well as the Court, as falling within the Act of 1856. Otherwise, the motion by Mr. Hill would have been to receive the award, and make it the judgment of the Court; and not to enter the award preliminarily upon the minutes, as directed by the Act of 1856, in order to give the Court jurisdiction of the case. Counsel for the defendant resisted the motion for the same reason, apprehending that if the application was granted, and the award entered upon the minutes, they would be shut in by the Act of 1856, to but a solitary objection, and that was fraud and corruption in the arbitrators. And the Judge, thus misled, took the same view of it, as the bill of exceptions abundantly shows.
It turns out, however, that this proceeding was not under the Act of 1856, but under the XXXth § of the Judiciary Act of 1799, authorizing the submission to arbitrators, by agreement of parties, of a case already in Court. Cobb, 487. And counsel, now, upon sober-second thought, all concur in this opinion. And if this be so, the Court erred in directing the award to be entered upon the minutes of the Court, before hearing and determining the validity of the exceptions filed
If an arbitration is had in terms of this Act, the party in. wnose favor it- is rendered, is entitled to bring it into Court, put it upon the minutes, and have it enforced as a judgment, instead of being compelled to sue upon the award, as heretofore. To entitle a party to the right, however, the terms of the Act must be pursued. With some amendments, this may be a good law. Restricting the grounds of exception, alone to'fraud and corruption in the arbitrators, it will soon become obsolete, for nobody will risk their rights under it.
Judgment reversed.