Case ID: scl_26/html/0197-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Evans, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

*Wm. Coxe vs. J. Gent.
    When a case is referred to arbitration, the object is to supersede, by the judgment of the arbitrators, the verdict of a jury. It would follow, that the award should be either for a certain sum ascertained, or for a sum capable of being ascertained by reference to some part of the record.
    Before Evans, J., at Abbeville, Spring Term, 1841.
    This case Came up under the following statement of facts :
    An action was pending by the plaintiff against the defendant on a note signed “ Fielding and Jesse Gent.” By an agreement between the parties, at or before the last Court, the case was to be marked continued, and was to be settled by the award of arbitrators. The award to be final, as the judgment of the Court. The arbitrators were chosen and an award was made, as follows : “ The undersigned, a majority of the persons chosen to arbitrate and settle the case between Wm. Cox, Senr., plaintiff, and Jesse Gent, defendant, in relation to a certain note, made payable to said Cox, by Fielding Gent, with Jesse Gent’s name signed, have heard the evidence, and according to their judgment of the facts, do find for the plaintiff the amount of the note. ”
    At this term the plaintiff’s attorney moved to confirm the award, and for leave to enter up judgment upon it. The note was copied on the declaration.
    I refused this motion. 1st. Because the award was for no definite sum. 2d. Because the awatd did not refer to any particular note, by such description as would connect it, with certainty, with the note sued on, so as to authorise the entering up the judgment for any certain amount.
    The written submission was entitled thus:
    
      
    
    'l’lie plaintiff appeals. Because, by proper reference, the award may be made sufficiently certain.
    
      *Wardlaw and Perrin, for the motion,
    said that the award was sufficiently certain, and cited in support of this position, 1 American C. L. R. title Award and Arbit.; 8 Peters, 177, Luths vs. Wesickin; 2 Strange, 1082; 2 M'Cord, 279.
    
      As to certainty by reference. Infra, 429. An.
    
    A misrecital of an award, has been held not fatal, and on this point cited 1 Ven. 184.
    In reply, said there is more latitude given to an award than a verdict.
    Burt, contra,
    said that judgments are taken by the English practice in advance of the order for arbitration, and referred to Watson on Awards, 194; 1 East Rep. 401.
    There is not a sufficient description of the note sued on in the award.
    If judgment had been given upon this award, defendant could not have been protected from a future suit.
    Arbitrators could not try the question of whose note it was.
   Curia, per

Evans, J.

Upon a review of all the facts of this case, I concur with my bretheren, that there was error in the circuit decision. The award states the case which the arbitrators decided, to be one in which Wm. Cox was plaintiff, and J. Gent, defendant. Connecting this with the fact that the award signed by the arbitrators is directed to the clerk of the Court, there was, I think, sufficient evidence to identify the award with the case on the docket. When a case is referred to arbitration, the object is to supersede, by the judgment of the arbitrators, the verdict of a jury. It would follow from this, that the award should be either for a certain sum ascertained, or for a sum capable of being ascertained by reference to some part of the record. The usual form of a verdict in debt or bond is, “We find the writing obligatory within declared on, to be the deed of the defendant.” This has always been regarded as sufficient, without the specification of any particular sum in the verdict. The sum is ascertained by reference to the declaration. So, in this case, the award is, we find for the plaintiff the amount of the note. This is equivalent to a finding for the amount due on the note described in and copied on the declaration. This Court is therefore of opinion, that the presiding judge ought to have granted the motion,* unless there were other objections to the confirmation of the award. The motion to reverse the decision of the Circuit Court, is therefore granted, subject to the right of the defendant to impeach the award on any other ground.

The whole Court concurred.