Case Name: White against Jones
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1822-06-12
Citations: 8 Serg. & Rawle 349
Docket Number: 
Parties: White against Jones.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases adjudged in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Sergeant & Rawle)
Volume: 8
Pages: 349–350

Head Matter:
White against Jones.
, An award in favour of the plaintiff, of a judgments, ami dates of togetherwithin0ientiy certain,
In Error.
ERROR to Lycoming county, J ü J
In pursuance of a rule entered by the plaintiff below, the defendant in error, this case was submitted to arbitration, under the Act of the 20th of March, 1810. The arbitrators awarded, “for the plaintiff, three judgments against the fendant, dated the 21st of December, 1813, amounting to one hundred and sixty-five dollars forty cents, together with interest. Also one other judgment, amounting to forty dollars, dated the 30th of November, 1816, together with interest. Also one hundred dollars, with interest, from the 18th of February, 1815, together with costs of suit.”
The record being removed to this Court, by writ of error,
Burnside, on behalf of the plaintiff in error, insisted,
that the award could not be supported. It was not of a sum of money, or of any thing definite, but of three judgments, without stating in what Courts they were entered, or who were the plaintiffs; and of another judgment, without mentioning the Court, or either of the parties to the suit, in which it is obtained. Nor was the time when interest was to commence, clearly designated. It wanted, therefore, that certainty, which is essential to the validity of an award. Spalding v. Irish, 4 Serg. & Rawle, 322.
He objected to the award, also, because no declaration or statement appeared on the record.
Vaughan, for the defendant in error, answered,
that the sums to be paid, and the times from which the interest was payable, being fixed by the award, nothing more was necessary, than to calculate the interest on the several judgments, from the times when they were respectively entered, till the date of the award, and then to add the whole together. This simple process would reduce the award to certainty; and as Courts. always strive to sustain awards, this ought not to be set aside. Walker v. Gibbs, 2 Dall. 211. 1 Dall. 174, 458. 5 Serg. & Rawle, 167. 6 Binn. 34.
A declaration for money had and received, he added, had been filed and delivered to the arbitrators, but had been lost.
In reply, it was said, that, in an action for money had and received, there could not be a recovery of a judgment.

Opinion:
Per. Curiam. —
This award is certain enough. The three
judgments are declared to amount to one hundred and sixty-five dollars forty cents ; and their date is mentioned, viz. the 21st of December, 1813. Then, when it is said that this sum is given with interest, the meaning is plain enough, interest from the date of the judgments to the date of the award'; because, by our lawj all judgments bear interest from their date. The fourth judgment is mentioned to be for forty dollars, dated the 30th of November, 1816. The amount of this judgment is also given, with interest. This too must be understood, interest from.the date of the judgment to the date of the award. One other sum is given, viz. one hundred dollars, with interest from the 18th of February, 1815. This is the substance of the award ; from which it appears, that the total sum given to the plaintiff, may be ascertained, by calculating interest, as directed by the award, on each separate sum, and then adding their amount together. This simple operation will give a total, which is the exact sum awarded to the plaintiff. .
There is no weight in the objection founded on the want of a declaration. When this action was brought, no declaration was necessary, though the law has since been altered.
There is nothing illegal on the face of this award ; and being sufficiently certain, we are of opinion the judgment should be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.