Spear v. 497 Flynn, Sheldon v. 238 128 Marshall v. Joy, 546 479 McClure, Stanley v. 253 375 McDaniels v. Reed et al., 674 193 Miller et al. v. Dow, 235 530 v. Emery, 579 Seely et al., Day v. 542 Newcomb et al. v. Peck et al., 302 Shaw, Adm'r, v. Partridge, 626 Norton, Sanford v. 285 Sheldon v. Flynn, 238 CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF VERMONT, FOR THE COUNTY OF ESSEX, MARCH TERM, 1842. [Continued from Vol. 14, page 490. ] PRESENT. HON. CHARLES K. WILLIAMS, CHIEF Judge. HON. MILO S. BENNETT, ASSISTANT JUDGES. JAMES HOWARD v. ABEL EDGELL AND HORACE A. EDgell. IN CHANCERY. Although mere inadequacy of consideration in a contract will not, of itself, substantiate a charge of fraud, yet when gross, and connected with other circumstances of a suspicious character, it may furnish sufficient ground to induce a court of chancery to rescind the contract. Arbitrators, to whom is submitted a question in reference to the relative value of property, must, in their appraisal, keep strictly within the terms and requirements of the submission; and if they vary from, or exceed, the powers conferred upon them, their award will be void. Howard v. Edgell et al. Where the parties agreed to change farms, and submitted to appraisers to determine the amount which should be paid as the difference between them, and it was provided in the submission that the value of the orator's farm should be called $5000, and that, if, in the opinion of the appraisers, the orator's farm was overvalued, or undervalued, the defendant's farm should be valued in the same proportion, and the appraisers, in making their award, ascertained the real value of the farms, and hence deduced the difference to be paid, without regard to the value fixed for the orator's farm in the submission, it was held that the award was void, as not having followed the submission, and would be set aside by a court of equity. THIS was a bill brought to set aside a contract made between the parties for an exchange of lands. The orator set forth, in his bill, that, in July, 1835, he contracted to purchase of Joseph Fry, of Concord, a farm in said town at the price of $3000, and made several payments towards the purchase money, and took a bond from said Fry, conditioned, that, on payment of the last instalment of the purchase money, which was made payable in April, 1843, the said Fry should execute to the orator a warrantee deed of the premises, and that the orator entered into possession of said premises under said contract, and retained the possession thereof until the time of bringing this bill, and had, while in possession, made great and valuable improvements upon the farm and buildings, amounting to about the sum of $700; and that, previous to the eighth day of May, 1839, the orator was the owner of another tract of land in the east part of said Concord, of the value of $500. The orator farther alleged, that on said eighth day of May, 1839, and at several times previous, the defendants represented to him that they were the owners of five farms in Charleston, in the County of Orleans, which they would exchange for the orator's lands in Concord, and that they would give to the orator good warrantee deeds of three of said farms, and that the defendant Horace A. Edgell would give a quitclaim deed of one of said farms, known as the "School Lot," and that the defendant Abel Edgell would give a quitclaim deed of the other of said farms, known by the name of the "Upper Melendy Lot"; that the said Abel said that that lot had been conveyed to him by a quitclaim deed, and that both of the defendants falsely |