Case ID: scl_4/html/0468-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Waties, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, COLUMBIA,
    PRIL, 1811.
    Hamilton Brown v. Edward Davis.
    submission was concerning “some property in dispute, formerly the property oí W. B., deceased.” The award was, “ that the defendant give np to the plaintiff the two young negroes, Bill and Hannah, oí the estate of W. B., deceased.” On demurrer to plaintiff’s replication setting forth the award, it was adjudged good. The submission being general, the award may be so too. And nothing appearing necessary to be done hy the plaintiff, it was not necessary to award a release, and satisfaction may be implied.
    Demurrer, determined by Bat, J., in Pendleton district, for the plaintiff. 'The case was this. The action was debt on a bond. The defendant craved oyer of the bond and condition ; and after setting iorth the condition, which was “to stand to, and abide by the award of certain persons, between the parties, in and about some property lying in dispute between them, and which was for-meriy the right and property of William Brown, deceased,” pleaded that there never was an award made pursuant to the terms of the said condition. To this plea the plaintiff replied, that there was an award in these words : “ March 5th, 1806. We, the arbitrators for Edward Davis, and Hamilton Brown, we award as follows, that is to say : That Edward Davis shall give up to Hamilton Brown the two young negroes, namely, Bill and, Hannah, of the estate of William Brown, deceased ; the said negroes to be delivered upon on demand, or $700 to be paid to H. Brown on or before the 25th of December next,” and assigned a breach of the performance thereof, in the terms of the awards. To this there was a general demurrer, and joinder.
    Judgment for the plaintiff, Brown.
    On the motion in this court to reverse the decision of the District Court, Bowie, for the defendant, Davis, contended, that the award was partial, being for part only of the matters submitted ; the two young negroes being only part of William Brown’s estate, in dispute. That the award is on one side only, and therefore not mu. tual; nothing being awarded to be done, or suffered by Brown ; no equivalent, or recompense, appearing, — not even a release awarded to be made by him, upon delivery of the negroes. And lastly, that the award is uncertain, as to its effects and consequences, it not declaring that the negroes shall bo accepted in satisfaction. It does not appear to be final. Cited Cro. J. 52, 447. 1 Bac. Abr. Title Arbitr. 8 Co. 98. 1 Burr. 274.
    Yaincey, on the contrary,
    contended, that awards ought to be construed largely and liberally to put an end to disputes ; but rigidly, as to their extent, to confine them strictly to the terms, or intent of the submission. That where the submission is general, the award may be so too ; and if, within the general terms of the submission, they ought not to be construed to mean, or embrace, any other matter than such as 'is within the submission. That if any other property was in dispute between the parties, than the two ne-groes mentioned in the, award, and was intended by the submission, this ought to have been brought into view by proper pleading ; by a rejoinder, explaining the terms of the submission, and by proper averments. But on demurrer, the court cannot, from a view of the pleadings as they now appear on record, say, that any thing was in dispute but what is .determined by the award. The award must be taken to be as broad as the submission, as the contrary does not appear. A release, or satisfaction, is to be intended, if necessary. On compliance with the award, the defendant will be protected from any future disturbance, from the plaintiff, on account of the property awarded. Cited, 1 Bac. Abr. Tit. Arb. aud Aw. 1 Com. Dig. 507. Kyd on Aw. 151.
    Bowie, in reply,
    'insisted that parol evidence is not admissible to explain awards. That a release ought to have been awarded. Here none can be implied. Kyd, 149'.
   May 5th, 1811.

Waties, J.,

delivered theopinion of the court. The award must be taken to have decided on the whole matter submitted ; and satisfaction must be implied. . The award performed will,bar any future claim by the plaintiff. The award is, that defendant shall give up to the plaintiff “ the two young ne-groes, &c.” This may be fairly construed to intend what is meant in the submission by the words “ some properly in dispute.” It cannot be fairly construed to mean any other property, because p,o other property is mentioned in the pleadings ; and the demurrer seems to admit that no other property was'submitted.

Motion refused.