Case Name: THOMAS FALLON, Respondent, v. MICHAEL KELEHAR and BARTHOLOMEW KELEHAR, Appellants
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1878-12
Citations: 23 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 266
Docket Number: 
Parties: THOMAS FALLON, Respondent, v. MICHAEL KELEHAR and BARTHOLOMEW KELEHAR, Appellants.
Judges: Gilbert, J., concurred; Dtk-maN, J., not sitting.
Reporter: Supreme Court Reports (Hun)
Volume: 23
Pages: 266–267

Head Matter:
THOMAS FALLON, Respondent, v. MICHAEL KELEHAR and BARTHOLOMEW KELEHAR, Appellants.
Award — when void for uncertainty — hut one award can he made'.
Appeal from an order confirming an award of arbitrators, and directing judgment thereon in favor of the plaintiff entered therein.
The plaintiff had an action pending in this court against the defendants, wherein the plaintiff’s claim was stated at $211.85 for “•work, labor, and services performed, and materials furnished to the defendants by the plaintiff.” The defendants in their answer denied the claim, and averred that the work was done “negli gently and unskillfully.” The issue or difference “ arising out of the said suit ” was submitted to arbitrators. On the 20th March, 1878, the arbitrators made an award as follows, in writing, and-delivered it to the parties : “ By virtue of the powers vested in us, by the submission to arbitrate between Thomas Fallon and Michael and B. Kelehar, declare that the contractor is entitled to his full bill, after deducting all the bills that Michael and Bartholomew have paid him, and also fifteen dollars for taking down side wall.”
The court at General Term said : “It seems very clear that there is nothing stated in this award from which any definite sum can be produced. No sum is stated and no dates are given from which, by calculation, any certain sum can be obtained. An award must be certain or it is void. (Purdy v. Delevan, 1 Cai., 304; Jackson v. Ambler, 14 Johns. R., 96.)
On the next day after the award above mentioned was given, the arbitrators made another award giving precise figures, which resulted in a judgment in favor of plaintiff for $190.66. By this award the arbitrators directed the discontinuance of the suit pending in the Supreme Court. The second award was unauthorized and is void. The arbitrators could make but one award. (Dolce v. James, 4 N. Y., 568.)”
Jos. F. Daly, for the appellants.
Martin J. Keogh, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Opinion by
BarNard, P. J.;
Gilbert, J., concurred; Dtk-maN, J., not sitting.
Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted.