CONCILIATION OF CONTROVERSIES

Authors

Abstract

It is a matter of common criticism more or less just that the administration of law is unnecessarily tedious and expensive. Particularly among those of the poorer classes is it true that the delay and expense incident to the enforcement of small claims amounts to a practical denial of justice. With a view toward relieving this situation, North Dakota adopted the first state-wide act for the conciliation of controversies. Chapter 38, Laws of North Dakota, 1921. That act has recently been put to the test and upheld in the case of Klein v. Hilton (N. D., 1922), 191 N. W. 485. The gist of the act is that it provides for the submission to conciliation of legal disputes involving less than $200 as a condition precedent to the issuance of process in commencement of a civil suit by any trial court, except where a provisional or auxiliary remedy is sought or title or possession of real estate is involved. The act in its administrative features provides for a board of conciliation appointed by the district court judge in each county, each conciliator to have the qualifications of a voter and to receive a small fee for his services. No conciliator is compelled to act in a given controversy. Upon application for conciliation, the conciliator summons the party complained of in an informal way. Whenever a settlement is effected the conciliator makes a report of complainant's demand and the terms of settlement to the district court, where it is entered upon the docket and given full force as a judgment in that court. Upon a failure to agree, either or both parties may have a certificate from the conciliator showing that fact. Personal appearance of the parties is required, except that for good cause a person may be represented by a third party not a member of the bar.

Recommended Citation

CONCILIATION OF CONTROVERSIES, 22 Mich. L. Rev. 49 (1923).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol22/iss1/6