Case Name: Zeigler against Zeigler
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1816-04-13
Citations: 2 Serg. & Rawle 286
Docket Number: 
Parties: Zeigler against Zeigler.
Judges: Brackenribge J. was absent in consequence of sickness.
Reporter: Reports of cases adjudged in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Sergeant & Rawle)
Volume: 2
Pages: 286–289

Head Matter:
Zeigler against Zeigler.
In Error.
Christopher Zeigler, the plaintiff in error, brought all áction on the case in the Common Pleas of Lehigh county, against Abraham Zeigler, the defendant, to recover a compensation for rebuilding or repairing a saw-mill bn the premises of the latter. In addition to several other pleas, the defendant pleaded an award of arbitrators and judgment in a former suit between the parties, in which the present defendant was plaintiff and the present plaintiff defendant. On this plea issue was joined, the plaintiff having replied mil tiel record. On the trial of the issue the defendant offered in evidence the record of an action of covenant founded upon an agreement between the plaintiff and himself, in which the plaintiff agreed to sell him the tract of land upon which the saw mill was erected. The cause was referred to arbitrators, who awarded “that Christopher Zeigler should make to “ Abraham Zeigler, a good deed, free and clear of all incumbrances, agreeably to an article between, them dated 1st “ April, 1809, together with costs of suit.” This award was returned to the office of the prothonatory of Lehigh county and filed agreeably to the act of assembly. The plaintiff’s counsel objected to its being read, contending that it was a nullity, because the arbitrators had no right to award a conveyance of land in an action of covenant brought to recover damages. The court however permitted the record to be read. The defendant then offered the arbitrators as witnesses to prove, that the dispute relative to the claim of Christopher Zeigler, for repairing the saw-mill, had been submitted to, and decided by them, he having brought it forward and demanded a compensation for his services. To this evidence also the plaintiff’s counsel objected, but it was admitted by the Court, who sealed a bill of exceptions on both points.
An award of arbitrators, when entered on the docket of the’prothonatory, is a judgment Upon which a writ of error lies, but although erroneous in point of law, it cannot, while it remains unreverséd, be annulled collaterally in another action.
Where an award of arbitrators is in issue, the arbitrators may be examined to proye Tfhat they decided upon.
On the argument in this Court, J. Ewing for the plaintiff in error, insisted that the arbitrators having decided upon matters not submitted to them, and having given an award upon which no judgment could be entered or execution issued, the award was a nullity. Richter v. Chamberlin. And to shew that parol evidence was inadmissible to prove facts which did not appear upon the face of the record, he cited Manny v. Harris. De Long v. Stanton, Kitchen v. Campbell. Bull. N. P. 233.
Scott for the defendant in error,
said that it was no objection to the judgment that execution could not issue upon it, because it might be enforced by attachment. Kunckle v. Kunckle. But whether the judgment was or was not valid was of no consequence, because when an award of arbitrators is entered on the docket, it becomes a judgment, which if erroneous may be reversed upon a writ of error, but which cannot be overturned in a collateral way in another action, Ebersoll v. Krug. The defendant had pleaded a former award"and judgment, and on this plea issue was joined. ' He therefore had a right to give in evidence the award which was part of his plea.
As to the parol evidence, it was admitted from necessity. Upon the submission of a cause to arbitrators there are no pleadings. The record therefore does not shew what was in controversy between the parties, and unless the arbitrators are permitted to prove what they decided upon, the rule nenió debet bis vexari cannot be enforced.
6 Binn. 34.
2 John. 24.
9 Johns. 38.
3 Will. 308.
1 Dall. 364.
3 Binn. 528.

Opinion:
Tilghman C. J.
In this case there are two exceptions to the opinion of the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh county. (Here the Chief Justice briefly stated the facts.)
1. As to the report of the arbitrators; it is not necessary to decide whether the arbitrators had a right to award a conveyance of land. The only question is, whether it was such a record as supported the defendant's plea; and I am of opinion that it was. This Court decided in the case of Ebersoll v. Krug, (3 Binn. 528.) that under the act of assembly, the award, when entered on the docket of the prothonotary, was to be considered as a judgment on which a writ of error lies. Now supposing this judgment to be erroneous, still it remains in force, until reversed. It therefore was a judgment at the time when the defendant offered it in evidence.
2. There can be no doubt but the parol evidence was properly admitted, to shew that the dispute concerning the sawmill was decided by the arbitrators. It was brought forward on the part of the present plaintiff, who was defendant in that suit,'and if the arbitrators had thought him entitled to an allowance on account of the mill, they would have made it. There are no pleadings before arbitrators, but if the defendant has any thing to offer in discount, it is always heard. It becomes necessary, therefore, to ascertain by parol evidence what was offered by way of discount.. To preclude such evidence would work great injustice, and no rule of law is violated by the admission of it, because it is quite consistent with the record. The Court must pay regard to the usual and well known course of proceeding before arbitrators. The law of evidence, which is founded in good sense and convenience, is always adapted to the nature of the case. In a case, therefore, where a defendant was admitted to bring forward a claim of discount, and in the usual course of proceeding such claim was not entered on the record, it became necessary to prove it by parol evidence, which was the best that the nature of the case admitted. I am .of opinion, that the judgment should be affirmed.
Yeates J.
If the demand of the plaintiff for rebuilding this saw-mill had been settled by arbitration in another suit, between the same parties wherein he was defendant, and the same had been credited to him way of set-off, I see no reason whatever why the same should not be permitted to go to the jury under the issues joined in this action. But the case is much stronger for the defendant in error. In the former action his adversary entered a rule to have arbitrators chosen under the act of 3d April, 1809, to decide the matters in variance between them. The arbitrators chosen heard the parties and made their award, having taken into consideration the cause of action in the previous suit and settled the same. This award has been filed in the prothonotary's office, and from the time of its being entered on record has all the effects of a judgment, under the provisions of the lqw and the decision of this Court in Ebersoll v. Krug, 3 Binn. 528. The plaintiff in error has acquiesced therein, and has neither appealed from the decision of the arbitrators nor taken out a writ of error thereon. The award may possibly be erroneous in point of law, but while the judgment on it remains unreversed, it cannot be annulled collaterally in another action. I am of opinion, that the judgment rendered in the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh county be affirmed.
Brackenribge J. was absent in consequence of sickness.
Judgment affirmed.