Case ID: nc_3/html/0030-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Blackledge vs. Simpson.
    
    HE bill stated several-settlements of account at different pe« -f riods,between the complainant and defendant, and balances^ struck, for which the complainant had given bonds and mortgages ; and that in each settlement there were many errors-ami-•unfair items', particularizing them, and that Simpson had obtaiiy-(d judgments, and prayed that the accounts might be opened: and the errors rectified. — Simpson pleaded the account stateef, and that there were not any such errors as- the complainant aU. Tedged. The matters in dispute were referred to arbitrators,, who awarded, that the first settlements were final,,-and as to the last settlement, that the balance justly due from Bláckledge was-,' so much, which vras a much smaller sum than had been struck; by the parties, and this sum they awarded Blackledge to pay. Blackledge then filed exceptions to the award — the first of which was, that the arbitrators had not given any award with-respect to the errors- complained of in the bill — the second was,, that the arbitrators did refuse to receive any evidence of the ¡errors alledged in the bill — the third was, that the award was., not mutual.
   Per curiam.

There are two modes of excepting to awards s-one for what appears on the face of the award itself, as that it does not come up to the requisites of the law for constituting a good award ; the second is for matter extraneous, as for mis-behaviour of the arbitrators. The first and the third of these objections are of the first sort, the second of -the latter sort.— The first objection amounts to this, that the arbitrators have not passed upon all that was particularly referred to them, and if this appear upon the face of the award, it is not a good one : they have awarded that the first settlements were final — this is equivalent to saying that the settlements ought ñotto be disturbed or opened, aud this they could not determine without examining .‘into the errors complained of, to see whether in reality there were any errors or not; ic was not necessary they should state •each complaint of en or.and say it was ill loundcd ; they have staied enough to shew they have considered these complaints and over-ruledihem, acid that is enough. As to the third exception, to he sine the rule is, that an award must be mutual, •but the meaning of that is, that the award ims-st be so coastrue-.-■ed as not. to leave aim, who is to pay, liable to be sued ior the ■same cause for which he is awarded to pay : but here it sniff i-ently appears by looking into the bill, pleadings, reference mid award,, for what cause they order this sum to be paid, and then it follows that if he should be again sued for the same cause, he may produce these proceedings, and shew he has already <i:s-ebarched himself of these demands: It is not necessary they should have awarded any thing to be paid or done by Simpson ; the Coblers award reported by Burrow was held goodit sward-ed a sum to be paid for the first breach of the law, and this was Upon the principle that the word A - sufficiently identified the cause which was the consideration oí die payment. As to the second objection, that is for the misbehaviour of the arbitrators, and must be made out by proofs : A day was given to make o« the proof, and on that day no proof being adduced to substantiate the exception, it was oyer-ruled, end a decree passed agreeably to the award.