Case Name: NOBLE against PEEBLES
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1825-10-31
Citations: 13 Serg. & Rawle 319
Docket Number: 
Parties: NOBLE against PEEBLES.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases adjudged in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Sergeant & Rawle)
Volume: 13
Pages: 319–323

Head Matter:
[Chambersburg,
October 31, 1825.]
NOBLE against PEEBLES.
IN ERROR.
Construction of awards.
Prosecutions for assaults and batteries may be the subject of reference by the parties.
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Bedford county.
Debt by William Peebles, the plaintiff below, and defendant in error, against John Noble, the defendant below, and plaintiff in error, in which the plaintiff demanded by his declaration five hundred dollars, upon an award between the parties. By the submission, the parties, on the 29th.of April, 1817, agreed “to have all business, civil and state, in dispute, referred to five persons, (named therein,) to determine between them, and whatever report the said referees agreed upon, the said parties agreed to bind themselves, in the penal sum of five hundred dollars, for the true performance.”
Award. — -“We/tlie under-named referees, having met, in pursuance of your appointment, dated the 23d of April, 1817, at the house of John Noble, and being there duly sworn, according to law, and then, by the unanimous consent of both parties, having all matters of dispute, both civil* and state, referred to us, and whereas, William Peebles, the defendant, having agreed to give up all rights, claims, and pretension, to the place he now-occupies, or has leased of John Noble, the plaintiff, paying, or causing to be paid, to the said William Peebles, the defendant, the sum of one hundred and fifty-two dollars, and sixty-four cents, as a recompense of all his right, claims, and pretension, to his present lease, aforesaid, viz. grain in the ground, &c. and the said compensation money, of one hundred and fifty-two dollars, and sixty-four cents, to be paid by John Noble, the plaintiff, to William Peebles, the defendant, before he gives up possession to the said John Noble, the plaintiff. All costs of suit accruing, both civil and state, between both parties, to be equally divided between each. Given under our hands and seals, &c.”
The defendant craved oyer of the writing’ obligatory, and condition thereof. The defendant pleaded no award, and payment, with leave to give the special matters in evidence. Replication, that an award was made, non solvit, and issues. 2d of January, 1821, replication amended, thus, “that an award was made,prout the award filed.” To which the defendant demurred; and assigned for cause of demurrer, that the award was in pursuance of no submission — was not final, nor certain, nor mutual, and prayed judgment. The plaintiff joined in demurrer. November, 1821, leave given to amend narr., and the judgment on demurrer in favour of the plaintiff. 29th of March, 1822, amended narr. filed.- 8th of August, 1823, tried, and a verdict for the plaintiff, for two hundred and nine dollars, twelve cents, on which judgment was entered.
On the trial, the plaintiff offered in evidence a submission, dated the 29th of April, 1817, proved by the subscribing witness; to the admission of which the counsel for the defendant objected, and the. court overruled the objection, and admitted the evidence; to which the defendant excepted.
The plaintiff read the submission, and then, having proved the award, dated the 29th of April, 1817, offered the award in evidence. The counsel of the defendant objected to the reading of the award in evidence, on the ground that the arbitrators had no authority to make such award, and the award was unlawful, not certain, final, or mutual. The objection was overruled, and the evidence received, and an exception taken by the defendant.
The defendant’s counsel prayed the court to instruct the jury,
1. Whether the award in this ease is warranted by any submission of the parties.
Answer by the Court. That it is.
2. Whether the arbitrators, by any submission here produced, were empowered to rescind the contract of the parties,
<Answer. They have, if in dispute.
3. Whether such award can be supported, rescinding the contract of the parties, without proof that any dispute existed respecting the property, the contract relative to which was thus rescinde
•Ansie That, if there was no proof before the arbitrators, of a dispute about the property, they could not.
4. Whether the award given in evidence is valid, and binding on the parties, if given in whole or in part in a dispute on a criminal prosecution.
•Answer. If the criminality of the crime was no more than a common assault and battery, it would.
5. Whether the award is mutual, certain, and final, so as to be legally binding.
Answer. It is.
6. Is answered, That the award would not be binding, unless there was satisfactory proof that it was within the submission, or acquiesced in.
Errors assigned, as follows:
1. The court erred, in stating that the award was warranted by the submission.
2d. The court gave no precise intelligible answer to the second point, proposed by the defendant. The construction of the written submission was for the court. They were requested to give their opinion on it, but did not.
3. The court erred, in referring the jury to evidence which might have been before the arbitrators, whereas the evidence before the jury was all that could be material for their consideration.
4. The court erred, in instructing the jury, that the arbitrators had power to rescind the contract between the parties, about the land, when no suhh power was given in the submission, and no evidence given of any dispute between the parties, about the land.
5. The court erred, in instructing the jury, that the arbitrators had power to settle criminal prosecutions. They gave no plain, intelligible answer to the defendant’s fourth point.
6. The court erred, in stating that the award was mutual, certain, and final.
7. The answers of the court to the defendant’s points are contradictory.
8. The court erred, in giving judgment on the demurrer, in favour of the plaintiff.
9. That the declaration is inconsistent, commencing in debt (according to the writ,) of five hundred dollars, and ending in the debt of one hundred and fifty-two dollars, sixty-four cents, and is erroneous, and repugnant, and the whole pleadings are defective. And the verdict is for a sum in debt different from either of the sum in the narr.
10: That there are two judgments. 1st, Judgment for the plaintiff on demurrer, ad, A new declaration, pleadings, trial, verdict, and judgment thereon.
The ease was submitted to the court without argument.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Tilghman, C. J.
This is an aetion brought by William Peebles, the plaintiff below, and defendant in error, against John Noble, the plaintiff in error, for the penalty of five hundred dollars, in which the parties mutually bound themselves, each to the other, for the performance of such award as should be made by certain arbitrators, to whom were referred " all business, civil and state, in dispute between the said parties." Several errors have been assigned, in none of which is there any weight, but one, viz. that the award is void, il because made on matters not submitted to the arbitrators, and because not certain, mutual, and final." The award, though not well drawn, is sufficiently intelligible. It seems that the plaintiff occupied a piece of land, to which ho claimed title, under a lease from the defendant. The award was, in substance, though awkwardly expressed, that the plaintiff should give up to the defendant the possession of this land, with the crops growing on it, in consideration whereof, the defendant should pay to the plaintiff, as a compensation, the sum of one hundred and fifty-two dollars, sixty-four cents; and that all suits between them, (whether civil, or state suits,} should cease, and the costs be divided equally between them. Here is no want of certainty, or mutuality, and the award is final. Upon payment of the sum awarded, the plaintiff's claim to the land he occupied would cease, and the defendant was to be put into the-sole possession. It was objected, that state suits could not be compromised. These suits, as was supposed, related to assaults and batteries, and might easily be adjusted, with the consent of both partios. We have an act of assembly, facilitating the settlement of prosecutions of that nature. Awards are to be favoured, as they enable suitors to settle their disputes, in the easiest, cheapest, most expeditious, and most equitable manner. Nothing more is required, than that they should be so drawn, as to make an end of the matters in dispute, and contain nothing contrary to law; and that they should not pass beyond the bounds of the subject submitted. The submission in the pi'esent case, is as wide -as possible, — all business, of whatever hind, in dispute between the parties. It does not appear, that the award comprehended any matters which were not in dispute at the time of the submission. If that had been the case, the defendant should have pleaded it. Instead of this, he demurred to the plaintiff's replication, in which the award was set forth; so that, the only question was, whether the award was had on its face. If it had appeared, by the award ¡(self, that it was made on matters not submitted, it would have been bad. But no such thing appears, and the court certainly will not suppose it. On the contrary, they will support the award, if possible, because it appears to be just, and equitable. I am of opinion, that it contains every ingredient necessary for a good award, and, therefore, the judgment should be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed