Hartupee v. City of Pittsburgh

Citations

• 131 Pa. 535
• 25 W.N.C. 485
• 19 A. 507
• 1890 Pa. LEXIS 1139

Syllabus

<p>[To be reported.]</p> <p>]. Fraud in the procurement of an award is admissible in an action at law thereon; and when one party seeks to recover a demand upon a contract, notwithstanding an awai'd against him to enforce which no action at law has been brought, he is entitled to maintain a bill in equity to set aside the award on the ground of fraud: per Stowe, P. J.</p> <p>2. To sustain such a bill, it is essential to aver and prove that the party benefited by the award participated in the fraud charged; but evidence that the arbitrator was partial and unfair, and knowingly made an improper decision, is insufficient for that purpose, without evidence that the party benefited colluded with the arbitrator, or practiced a fraud to procure the award.</p> <p>3. When a municipal contract provided that all disputes arising should be submitted to the city officer having the supervision of its performance, and, a dispute arising, the officer awarded in favor of the city, evidence that the award was known by him to be grossly unjust when he made it, that he was hostile to the contractor, and was receiving a salary from the city, is insufficient to connect the city with any fraud in the award.</p>