Case ID: serg-rawl_6/html/0276-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Murray, administrator of Murray, against Bruner.
    
      Monday, October 30.
    An award findfng&i'The plaintiff a be paid at the tiff wiii'mike" a correct deed to the h°S twoa'Jes and ahaffofiand,” cribing the*" land, is bad for uncertain-
    In ERROR.
    WRIT of error to Cumberland county.
    The cause, which was a scire facias to revive a former judgment, was submitted to arbitration under a compulsory entered by the plaintiff below, Abraham Bruner. The arbitrators awarded in favour of the plaintiff the sum of 83 dollars 25 cents “ to be paid at the time the plaintiff will make a correct deed of conveyance to the heirs of James Murray, deceased, for two acres and one half acre of land.” No apPeal ^l’om dús award having been entered, the plaintiff’s counsel obtained a rule to shew cause why execution should not issue. The Court not choosing to interfere, discharged the ruie, and left the plaintiff at liberty to take out execution at ^ ^ ^
    
      Metzger, for the plaintiff in error,
    now insisted that there was error on the face of the record. A sum of money was awarded to be paid by the defendant on terms, and those terms were uncertain, inasmuch as the plaintiff was to convey two and a half acres of land, without describing the land. In Kelly v. Dougherty, 1 Serg. & Rawle, 434. the arbitrators confirmed the articles of agreement, without stating what articles, and awarded damages to a certain amount to the plaintiff, without making it appear for what the .damages were. given, and the award was $et aside for uncertainty.
    Alexander, for the defendant in error,
    said that the only matter submitted to the arbitrators was, whether any payments had been made since the judgment, and argued that the award, so far as it found a certain sum due to the plaintiff, was good, though void as. to all the rest. Woglam v. Burnes, 1 Binn. 109. Dennis v. Barber, 4 Binn. 484. Moulson v. Rees, 6 Binn. 32. Richter v. Chamberlin, 6 Binn. 34. Massey v. Thomas, 6 Binn. 333.
    In reply, Metzger took a distinction between awards at common law, reports of refereed under the act of 1705, and awards of arbitrators under a ’compulsory rule j the last of which he insisted were to be construed- differently from the first two.
   Per Curiam.

This report is too uncertain tobe supported. The money awarded to the plaintiff is not to be paid “ until they make a correct deed of conveyance to the heirs of James Murray, deceased, of two acres and one half an acre of land” But of what land ? It may be in the valley of Cumberland, or on the top of the Blue Mountain. This part of the report cannot be rejected without destroying the whole ; for the conveyance of the land is the consideration for the money to be paid by the defendant, and without that con- ■ veyance, it was not the intent of the arbitrators that any -money should be paid. It is the opinion of the Court, therefore, that the judgment should be reversed.

Judgment reversed.