US LAWS, STATUTES and CODES : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library USA Supreme Court Decisions | Resolutions : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ |™   
Main Index Repository of Laws, Statutes and Codes Latest Philippine Supreme Court Decisions Chan Robles Virtual Law Library Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Legal Resources United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence ChanRobles LawTube - Social Network

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : DebtKollect Company, Inc. - Debt Collection Firm Intellectual Property Division - Chan Robles Law Firm

Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

google search for chanrobles.comSearch for


Subscribe to Cases that cite 46 U. S. 83 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

Alexandria Canal Co. v. Swann, 46 U.S. 5 How. 83 83 (1847)

Alexandria Canal Co. v. Swann

46 U.S. (5 How.) 83


Where a case is removed from Alexandria County to Washington County, in the District of Columbia, whatever defenses might have been made in Alexandria County, either as to the form of the action or upon any other ground, or whatever would have been a bar to the action, may all be relied upon in the new forum.

But the mode of proceeding, by which the rights of the parties are determined, must be regulated by the law of the court to which the suit is transferred.

A reference to arbitrators, therefore, which is sanctioned by the laws of Maryland, governing Washington County, is not to be overthrown because it is not sanctioned by the laws of Virginia, governing Alexandria County.

The validity of the reference, and of the proceedings and judgment upon it, must be tested by the laws of Maryland.

Although the charter of a company does not, in terms, give the power to refer, yet a power to sue and be sued includes a power of reference, that being one of the modes of prosecuting a suit to judgment.

So also, a power to agree with a proprietor for the purchase or use of land includes a power to agree to pay a specified sum or such sum as arbitrators may fix upon.

It is immaterial whether the power of reference is lodged in the resident and directors or in the stockholders assembled in general meeting, for the entire corporation is represented in court by its counsel, whose acts, in conducting the suit, are presumed to be authorized by the party.

Where the order of reference provides for the appointment of an umpire, it is no error if he is appointed before the referees had heard the evidence and discovered that they could not agree.

Where the agreement for reference contained a clause, providing that upon payment of damages to the owner of the land he should convey it to the other party, it was proper for the umpire to omit all notice of this. It was not put in issue by the pleadings, nor referred to the arbitrators.

The circumstances of the case are so fully set forth in the opinion of the court, that it is unnecessary to do more than refer to it for a statement of the facts. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 46 U. S. 86

ChanRobles™ LawTube

google search for Search for

Supreme Court Decisions Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsUS Supreme Court Decisions



Browse By ->> Volume


Browse By ->> Year


  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library |™