The Law of Arbitration; Being the Arbitration ACT, 1889

The Law of Arbitration; Being the Arbitration ACT, 1889 : With Notes of Statutes, Rules of Court, Forms and Cases, and an Index

By (author) 

List price: US$22.39

Currently unavailable

We can notify you when this item is back in stock

Add to wishlist

AbeBooks may have this title (opens in new window).

Try AbeBooks


This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1898 edition. Excerpt: ...for refusing to stay proceedings where the main object of the action is within that clause. Ives v. Willans (C. A.), L. R. (1894), 2 Ch. 478. In Lyon v. Johnson, L. R. 40 Ch. Div. 579, a motion to stay proceedings was refused by Mr. Justice Kay in the exercise of the discretion imposed on the Court by sect. 11 of The Common Law Procedure Act, 1854, though the questions in dispute were within the terms of an arbitration clause in a partnership agreement. Quaere, whether the effect of the words "in accordance with the submission," in sect. 4 of the Arbitration Act, 1889, is that in each case the Court must consider whether the provisions of the submission are applicable to the particular case, that is, whether the particular matter can conveniently be decided by arbitration. Denton v. Legge, 72 L. T. Rep. 626; 1895 L. R. W. N. 46. In Davis v. Starr (1889), 60 L. T. Rep. 797; L. R. 41 Ch. Div. 242 (C. A.), where the defendant had taken upon himself to dismiss the plaintiff, without waiting for the decision of the matters in difference by arbitration, the Court refused to stay proceedings, and held that it was too late, after the commencement of the action, for the defendant to withdraw his dismissal of the plaintiff, in order that it might be included in the arbitration. In Renshaw v. Queen Anne Residential Mansions and Hotel Company, L. R. (1897), 1 Q. B. 662; 76 L. T. Rep. 611 (C. A.), a case under sect. 4, the order of Day, J., referring the claim to arbitration, was afiirmed, and Davis v. Starr, supra, was distinguished on the ground that in that case the defendant was not ready to refer the whole case to arbitration. See Wickham v. Harding, 28 L. J. N.S. Ex. 215. In the Caledonian Railway Company v. Greenock and more

Product details

  • Paperback | 82 pages
  • 189 x 246 x 4mm | 163g
  • United States
  • English
  • black & white illustrations
  • 1236982401
  • 9781236982407