Case ID: scl_18/html/0113-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per O’Neall J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Richard Sharp v. R. Lipsey. Same v. Thomas Hughes.
    If the submission does not delegate to arbitrators the power to appoint an umpire, they have no such power as a consequence of the reference to them.
    Itmaybe shewn by parol, that after a submission in writing, the parties agreed that the arbitrators should have power to call in an umpire : Such an agreement is a new and independent contract, and not a variance of the written submission.
    A submission, in writing, to abide by the award “ of the arbitrators now about to sit,” may be shewn by parol, to have been intended at the time as a submission to certain individuals as arbitrators, with power to call in an umpire. It is rendering certain by parol, that which the parties did not intend to make certain by the writing.
    Where arbitrators have been authorized to select and call in an umpire, the consent of the parties to the selection made, is not necessary to give validity to the appointment of the umpire.
    The umpire may award upon the report of the arbitrators, without re-examining the witnesses, unless he is directed to do so by the submission, or it is afterwards required of him, by one or other of the parties, before he makes his award, vide Ex’ors. Finney v. Miller. 1 Bailey, 81.
   Per O’Neall J.

confirming the instructions to the jury by Mr. Justice Gantt, at Union, Fall Term, 1830.

Johnson J. and Harper J. concurred.