Case Name: John Dickey versus Manassah Sleeper
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1816-06
Citations: 12 Tyng 244
Docket Number: 
Parties: * John Dickey versus Manassah Sleeper.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 13
Pages: 199–200

Head Matter:
* John Dickey versus Manassah Sleeper.
In an arbitration bond in which the obligors were severally bound, one named in the bond as administrator executed it without any addition, and the arbitrators awarded a sum of money to be paid him as such administrator. The award was holden good in that part; and, if it had been otherwise, the other obligors would have been bound to perform the award as it respected them.
Debt on bond. On oyer, it appeared to be a bond of the defendant and sundry other persons, and amongst them “ John Cox, as administrator of the estate of George Cox, deceased ” ; by which they severally acknowledged themselves indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $ 3000 each. The condition recited, that there were many accounts between the plaintiff and the obligors, as members of a trading company, and that it had been agreed, that certain arbitrators named should examine all such accounts, and award and determine what sum should be paid or received by each member of the company ; and, as to such of the obligors as should perform the award of the said arbitrators, the bond was to be void.
The name of '•'•John Cox” was subscribed, and a seal thereto annexed, but without other addition.
The defendant pleaded no award made. The plaintiff, in his replication, set forth an award in substance; and, among other things contained therein, it was ordered, that the defendant should pay the plaintiff the sum of $380.93, and that the plaintiff should pay to “the said John Cox, administrator of George Cox, deceased,” an other sum certain ; and other sums were' awarded as to all the obligors.
The defendant demurred generally to the replication, and the plaintiff joineddn demurrer.
Mellen, in support of the demurrer,
argued, that the arbitrators had exceeded their authority, in awarding money to John Cox, as administrator ; he having executed the instrument only in his own name, and not as administrator. Neither the deceased intestate, nor his administrator as such, was party to the submission.
Orr, for the plaintiff.
Rol. Abr. 346. —Cro. Jac. 149—1 Saund. 392. — Poph. 134.

Opinion:
By the Court.
The intention of the parties to this submission was, to effect a final adjustment of the concerns of a trading company, in which they had been connected, and *of which, it should seem, the plaintiff had been the agent. One of the company, George Cox, was dead, and, it appears, a considerable sum of money was due to his estate from the company. John Cox, naming himself administrator of the deceased, became a party to the submission ; and the arbitrators awarded him a sum of money in his capacity of administrator. In this they did not exceed their powers. But, if they had in that particular, the defendant could not avail himself of it. The bond is the several deed of each obligor. The signature, also, of John Cox must be taken with reference to the description of him in the bond.
Replication adjudged good.