Case Name: Richter against Chamberlin and others
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1813-06-07
Citations: 6 Binn. 34
Docket Number: 
Parties: Richter against Chamberlin and others.
Judges: Ye ates J. absent in consequence of sickness.
Reporter: Reports of cases adjudged in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Binney)
Volume: 6
Pages: 34–36

Head Matter:
Richter against Chamberlin and others.
Sunbury, Monday, June 7.
trespass guare &o!veferreTto oia deciavatlcm^ or plea, the arbialfolioWe ‘Mandlhi^pute “ in favour of the «the division as «bethe esta-S “ blished line.” Held, that the defendant could recover no land under the award, nor were the boundaries fixed by it, that not being a matter about which the parties were at variance in the »uit, but merely a claim-of damages. The award is good, however, as a general finding, that the plaintiff had no cause of action.
IN ERROR.
Tj5 JP-A RROR to the Common Pleas of Northumberland.
Richter brought an action of trespass against the defendants, for breaking his close, pulling down and carrying away his fences, and treading down, spoiling and destroying his grass, with a continuando as to treading down, &c. the grass ^rom *st May to May 1812. On the same day on which the suit was instituted, and before either plea, declaration or statement filed, the plaintiff entered a rule of ret0^erence5 and the arbitrators returned the following award: “We do award the lands in dispute in favour of the defendant, and the division as it now starids to be the established a line.’’
The exceptions to the award, which were assigned for error in this Court, were, 1. That it had not pursued the submission, nor taken any notice of the damages mentioned in the, original writ. 2. That it was obscure and void, and unappropriate to the cause of action, so that no valid judgment could be rendered upon it, or carried into effect. 3. That it was uncertain, as it was in favour of the defendant; and there being three defendants, the arbitrators had not determined to which defendant the plaintiff should deliver the land; and further because it did not specify what land, or what fence should be the line.
Bradford, for the plaintiff in error.
Maus and Hall, contra.

Opinion:
Tilghman C. J.
The objections of the plaintiff in error are, that this award was not made on the subject submitted, that it is uncertain and absurd.
When an action is taken from the Court and carried before arbitrators under our act of assembly, it is not usual to plead and join issue in a formal manner. If this cause had been brought to issue, and tried by a jury, the issue might have been joined on the title to the land in dispute; and if that had been found for the defendant, judgment would have been given in his favour. When the parties went before the arbitrators, they probably contested the title, though that cannot appear. I consider the award as amounting to no more than that the plaintiff had no cause of action. The defendant cannot recover any land by virtue of it, nor are the boundaries between the lands of plaintiff and defendant, to be considered.as established; .for that was not a matter submitted to arbitration. The act of assembly authorizes the arbitrators to decide on all matters in variance in the action, and the writ shows that the matter in variance was a claim of damages by the plaintiff for a trespass on his land, and taking away his fences, &c. The law declares that the award when filed in the office- of the prothonotary, is to he considered as a judgment, although no judgment is formahy entered. This award would be sufficient 'foundation for the entry of a judgment, that the plaintiff take nothing by his writ, &c. and I consider it as having that operation, and no more. I am therefore of opinion, that the judgment be affirmed.
Ye ates J. absent in consequence of sickness.
Brackenridge J. of the same opinion with the Chief Justice.
Judgment affirmed.