Court Opinion

ID: 6421718
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-06-25 12:00:22.623913+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:51:48.419488
License: Public Domain

Field, J.
The award on which this action was brought was in writing, and was signed and published by the arbitrators on August 7, 1888. Before the award was signed, the defendant delivered to the arbitrators a paper signed by the president of the defendant corporation in its name, dated July 30, 1883, and a copy of the vote of the directors of the corporation passed on August 1,1883. These papers we construe to be an unconditional revocation by the defendant of the authority of the arbitrators to proceed under the submission. It is not contended that this revocation was waived or withdrawn by the defendant.
A submission to arbitration is a power which may be revoked at any time before it is executed by the publication of the award, and an agreement that the arbitrators may proceed ex parte, if either party neglects to appear, does not make the submission irrevocable. Wallis v. Carpenter, 13 Allen, 19, 24. Marsh v. Bulteel, 5 B. & Ald. 507. Mills v. Bayley, 2 H. & C. 36.
The contention is, that the submission was partially executed by the award that the defendant was not entitled to recover anything from the plaintiff in respect to the items numbered 3, 4, 5, and 6 in the statement of claims made by the defendant. It does, not appear that this was a separate award, actually reduced to writing and signed by the arbitrators. The unavoidable inference is, that this conclusion was announced to the parties as the determination of the arbitrators upon these items; and that *470the meeting of the arbitrators was adjourned for the purpose of subsequently hearing and determining the other claims of the parties, unless meanwhile the parties settled them.
An award must cover all the claims submitted and presented to the arbitrators, and must be mutual, certain, and final. If we assume that the oral announcement of the arbitrators of their determination upon these items was intended to be their final award on these items, the award would be bad, unless the parties had agreed that these items should be the subject of a separate award, because this award did not decide all the substantial matters submitted and presented. Randall v. Randall, 7 East, 81. Robson v. Railston, 1 B. & Ad. 728. Stone v. Phillipps, 4 Bing. (N. 0.) 37. Bhear v. Harradine, 7 Exch. 269.
It has not been found as a fact, that the parties agreed that these items should be the subject of a separate award. If this fact were found, it would perhaps show that the parties, by their subsequent agreement, entered into two separate submissions instead of one; but then the making and publishing of an award under one submission would not be a part execution of the power conferred by the other. But if it be assumed that the statement in the award is true, we are of opinion that the award itself does not show that the announcement of the determination of the arbitrators upon the items mentioned was intended by them as the making and publication of an award. The award, as it was finally made and published, is one and entire. The power of the arbitrators over all the matters submitted, if there had been-no revocation, would have continued until the award was finally made and published. Before this was done, it was competent for them to change their minds upon these items, to rehear the parties, and to revise their decision. The announcement was interlocutory, and not final. It is therefore unnecessary to consider whether any partial award, made and published under a submission such as this is, would preclude a party from revoking the authority of the arbitrators to proceed, under the submission, to consider and determine the remainder of the matters-submitted. Exceptions overruled.