#### HORATIO THOMPSON *vs.*L. D. CHILDS.

Wiien a submission to arbitration is by bond and an award is made, if the award be for the payment of money, a suit may be brought either on the bond or on the award, at the option of the party 'claiming benefit under it.

Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Lincoln County, at the Spring Term, 1847, his ’Honor Judge Settle presiding.

This was an action of debt upon ah award and the case was this. The plaintiff and defendant, having mutual claims, by bond, bearing date the 4th of February, 1846, submitted the matters in dispute to the arbitrament of L. E. Thompson and W. Williamson, who made their award on the 7th of the same month, and duly notified the parties thereof. In the award the arbitrators decide that the defendant owes to the plaintiff the sum of $1732 52 and adjudge that he pay It. The objections made by the defendant to the plaintiff’s recovery were all over-ruled by the Judge, and from the judgment given *438in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant appealed. The objections are stated in the opinion delivered in this Court.

*Thompson*and *Williamson,*for the plaintiff.

*Alexander*and *Guión,*for the defendant.

Nash, J.

On the trial below, several objections were' taken to the plaintiff’s right of recovery, all of which were properly overruled by the presiding Judge. The first is, that the action ought to have been brought on the bond of submission. It may be brought on either at the option of the plaintiff, where the award is for the payment of money, 2 *San.*62, *v. 5. Caldwell on awards*190, 192. The second objection is to the award,, that it does not correspond to and agree with the submission. The words in the bond are, “ all manner of accounts, debts, *dues*and demands the matters taken into consideration and passed upon by the arbitrators, are “ all matters of account, debts, *claims*and demands.” The only difference between the two instruments is in the substitution in the latter, of the word *claims*for that of *clues*in the former— substantially .they are the same. The third objection is, that the arbitrators had not decided upon or taken into their consideration a bond for $500, held by the plaintiff on the defendant, and that, therefore, their award was incomplete. With respect to this bond, it appeared that, before the matters in dispute were referred to Thompson and Williamson, they had been referred to other arbitrators, who had made aii award in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant then offered to give to the plaintiff his bond for $500, if he would consent to set aside that award, and refer the matters in dispute to Thompson and Williamson, and would stand to, abide by and perform their award. The plaintiff agreed to the proposition, and the $500 bond was executed and placed in the hands of Thompson as an escrow. When the award was made, a <sopy was handed to the plaintiff by Thompson and he *439expressed his willingness to abide by it, whereupon the bond was, by Mr. Thompson, delivered to him. The exception by the defendant is, that the arbitrators did not in their award pass upon this bond. The. answer to the objection is a simple one. If that bond constituted a debt, within the terms of the submission, then it was passed on by the arbitrators, and constitutes a portion of the $1732 52, awarded by their judgment — if it did not come within those terms, the arbitrators had no power to take it into their consideration, and th'eir not doing so constitutes no error on their part. Whether the bond was or was not within the submission, we do not decide, as the question is not before us. That question cannot arise, until a suit be brought on that bond, and the defendant plead the award in bar. The arbitrators, in their award, do not profess to be guided in their decision by the principles of law, and, if they. did, no error in that particular has been pointed out to us, nor do we perceive any. We see no error in the opinion of the Court below.

Pee Cueiam. Judgment affirmed.