Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
ARBITRATION̵This was a circumstantial case, in which the Union Canal Company suspended the award of an arbitrator, principally on the ground, that it was contrary to ‘the principles of eternal justice,’ in as much as the parties had not been fully heard on all points,—founding on the case of Earl of Dunmore v. M'Inturner, 28th Jan. 1835, F. C., and the cases there cited.
ANSWERED—The proceedings shewed that the parties had been fully heard; and this case did not come within the principle of that of Lord Dunmore, which had been rightly decided.
The Court were of opinion, that the facts did not warrant the plea of the suspenders, and that the case of Lord Dunmore, which was a strong one against the fairness and justice of the procedure therein, did not apply.
Lord Ordinary, Medwyn. Act. Dean of Fac. (Hope,) Outram. Alt. G. Bell. Davidsons & Syme, W. S. and John & Wm. Dymock, W. S. Agents. Bill-Chamber Clerk.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.