Neither can the arbitrator award a sum of money in certain, and also the costs of suit depending in an in-.. ferior court, because, says the book, there is no mode of ascertaining them; in this case, therefore, he must necessarily ascertain them himself." If, in any point, the arbitrators order that the parties shall stand to the award already made on that subject by former arbitrators, this is not such a delegation as to defeat the award; for it only expresses their approbation of what others have done, and has the same effect. as if they had repeated the former award as from themselves, in so many words. 8 So, an award, "that one before made by another arbitrator shall stand in all other respects, except, that whereas in the former award one was to pay 10. at Michaelmas, he shall have till Christmas to pay it," is good; for this is the same thing as if, without referring to the former award, they had repeated it with this alteration." At what time When by the submission a time is limit. they may make ed for making the award, it seems hardly their Award. necessary that it should have been judicially decided that it might be made on the day of the submission, yet a decision to that purpose is gravely reported.' It has also been found necessary to declare judicially, that the arbitrators may make their award in the evening of the day preceding that before which it is limited to be made, provided they do it before midnight.❜ 2 Where it is provided in the submission that the award shall be made on or before a particular day, and the time is afterwards enlarged by consent until a subsequent day, the award may be made on the latter. Thus where the proviso was, "that the award should be made on or before the first day of Michaelmas term,” and the time was enlarged on motion by consent "till the first day of Hilary term;" the award was made on the first day of Hilary term, and an application being made to set it aside, on the ground of its having been made out of time, the Lord Chancellor3 said he thought it impossible to impeach it on this foundation; that this was an enlargement of the time in statu quo, and must, therefore, include the first day of Hilary term, which, it was manifestly meant, should be substituted instead of the first day of Michaelmas term; and being satisfied with the award on the circumstances of the case, he ordered it to stand." Where a question arises as to the extent of the matters actually submitted to the decision of the arbitrator, the latter may be admitted as a witness to prove what matters were or were not laid before him." 3 Thurlow. 5 Vid. Ravee v. Farmer, 4 • Knox v. Simmonds, 3 Brown. Term Rep. 146. Ch. Rep. 358. CHAPTER V. THE AWARD OR UMPIRAGE. EVERY award in writing, in order to be enforced by law, must be on a suitable stamp; and the Court of King's Bench has lately decided, that if it be under seal it must be on a deed stamp, the sealing, as they held, constituting it a deed. But if it should happen to be on an improper stamp, the court will not on that account set it aside, but leave the party in whose favour it is made at liberty to procure the proper stamp to it, by paying the penalty." It has been laid down as a general rule, that the arbitrator is a judge, from whose sentence there is no appeal, and that no other tribunal can inquire into the equity of his decision. This is equally the general doctrine of the civil and the English law; but in both 3 1 I do not find the case reported, nor do I recollect the name of it. mus; quod observatur cum ex compromisso ad arbitratum itum est. Ff. 1. 17. t. 2. s. 76, 77, ante 2 Preston v. Eastwood, 7 Term page 73.-Qualem autem senRep. 95. 3 Arbitrorum genera sunt duo; unum ejusmodi, ut sive æquum Bit sive iniquum, parere debea tentiam dicat arbiter, ad Prætorem non pertinere, Labeo ait dummodo dicat quod ipsi videtur. Ff. 1. 4. t, 8. s. 19. it is guarded with particular restrictions, derived from the nature of the authority conferred on the arbitrators, and the implied engagement under which the contending parties bind themselves by their submission.^_ The chief of those restrictions is that which requires that the award should be consistent with the terms of the submission, the whole authority of the arbitrators being derived from thence." must be ac sion. The principal distinction in the Roman" The Award law is that between what is called a full cording to and what is called an incomplete submission. the Submis- A full submission was that which comprehended all kinds of controversy, and every subject of dispute between the parties; an incomplete submission extended only to some particular matter; yet, if the meaning of the parties was to confine the authority of the arbitrator to one subject, though by inadvertency the submission was full, the intention of the parties prevailed over the strict form of the submission, and they were not concluded, by a general award, from suing one another, on all those causes of action which were not intended to be submitted." It Vid. ante page 4. Quæsitum est de sententia dicenda? et dictum, non quamlibet: licet de quibusdam variatum sit. Ff.l. 4. t. 8. s. 32. n. 16. 5 De officio Arbitri tractantibus sciendum est, omnem tractatum ex ipso compromisso sumendum: nec enim aliud illi licebit, quam quod ibi, ut efficere possit, cautum est. Non ergo quodlibet statuere arbiter poterit, nec in re qualibet; nisi de quâ re compromissum est; et quatenus compromissum est. Ff. 1. 4. t. 8. s. 32. n. 15. 6 Plenum compromissum appellatur, quod de rebus controversiisve compositum est: nam ad omnes controversias pertinet. Sed si forte de unâ re sit disputatio, licet pleno compromisso actum sit, tamen ex cæteris causis actiones super was also a rule, that though the submission was full, yet it comprehended only those disputes which existed at the time of the submission, and that the arbitrator could not decide on any thing which had subsequently arisen." The same distinction between a full and a particular submission is also recognized in the English law; but that is far from being alone sufficient to explain the great multiplicity of cases that occur: it will therefore be necessary to compare the terms of the award with that of the submission under which it is made, arranging the cases according to the particular branches of the general rule to which they immediately refer. The first branch of the general rule is, that the award must not.ex. tend to any matter not comprehended within the submission. Must not extend to any mission. Thus, if the submission be confined to a particular subject of dispute, while there are other things in controversy between the parties, an award which extends to any of these other things is void, as far as it respects them." By a submission of all actions personal, the arbitrators have no power to make an award of any thing in which the parties have only a cause of action. Thus, in case |