all shall be bound by the award,32 and in some cases persons not parties to the record may join in submissions and become bound by the award.33

§ 2945. Requisites of submission.-As was said previously, a common-law submission need not be in any particular form, so long as it expresses the parties' intention.34 An express agreement to abide by the award is not necessary; such an agreement is implied from the fact of submission.35 The mutual promises of competent parties to submit their controversies to arbitration are a sufficient consideration for each other.36 It was also said. previously that an oral submission is valid where an oral agreement between the parties in the terms of the award would be good. The subject-matter of the submission must be set out with reasonable clearness, but the degree of certainty required in pleading is not necessary." It is not necessary to state the time

38

Union Assur. Co., 92 Ky. 494, 13 Ky. L. 720, 18 S. W. 122, 15 L. R. A. 270; Harrington v. Fitchburg Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 124 Mass. 126; Hall v. Fire Assn. of Philadelphia, 64 N. H. 405, 13 Atl. 648; Browning v. Home Ins. Co., 71 N. Y. 508, 27 Am. Rep. 86; Bronn v. Roger Williams Ins. Co., 5 R. I. 394. Cases holding mortgagee bound: Chandos v. American Fire Ins. Co., 84 Wis. 184, 54 N. W. 390, 19 L. R. A. 321. See also, Brunswick Sav. Inst. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 68 Maine 313, 28 Am. Rep. 56; Martin v. Franklin Fire Ins. Co., 38 N. J. L. 140, 20 Am. Rep. 372; Perry v. Lorillard Fire Ins. Co., 61 N. Y. 214, 19 Am. Rep. 272.

32

Gregory v. Boston Safe-Deposit &c. Co., 36 Fed. 408; Turner v. Stewart, 51 W. Va. 493, 41 S. E. 924. See Mobile v. Wood, 95 Fed. 537, holding award entirely void because persons whose rights were involved were not parties to submission. Also see Hoste v. Dalton, 137 Mich. 522, 100 N. W. 750, 11 Det. Leg. N. 392. Morgan v. Miller, 6 Bing. N. Cas. 168. 37 E. C. L. 565; Hawkins v. Benton, 9 Jur. 110, 2 Dowl. & L. 465, 8 Q. B. 479, 55 E. C. L. 479, 15 L. J. Q. B. 139.

23

So. 911, 11 So. 725; Couch v. Har-
rison, 68 Ark. 580, 60 S. W. 957;
Somerset v. Ott, 207 Pa. St. 539, 56
Atl. 1079.

Couch v. Harrison, 68 Ark. 580, 60 S. W. 957; Robinson v. Templar Lodge No. 17, I. O. O. F., 97 Cal. 62, 31 Pac. 609; Bundy v. Sabin, 1 Root (Conn.) 411; Evans v. McKinsey, Litt. Sel. Cas. (Ky.) 262; Kingsley

V. Bill, 9 Mass. 198; Whitcher v. Whitcher, 49 N. H. 176, 6 Am. Rep. 486; Valentine v. Valentine, 2 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 430; McManus v. McCulloch, 6 Watts (Pa.) 357; Smith v. Morse, 9 Wall. (U. S.) 76, 19 L. ed. 597; Stewart v. Cass, 16 Vt. 663, 42 Am. Dec. 534; Pierce v. Kirby, 21 Wis. 124.

V.

36 Wilkes v. Cotter, 28 Ark. 519; Bell v. Casey, 32 Ky. L. 1180, 108 S. W. 261; Woods Rice, 4 Metc. (Mass.) 81; Page v. Pendergast, 2 N. H. 233; Curtis v. Gokey. 68 N. Y. 300; Mayo v. Gardner, 49 N. Car. 359; Wilcox v. Singletary, Wright (Ohio) 420; McManus v. McCulloch, 6 Watts (Pa.) 357. See also. McGoey v. Leamy, 27 Can. Sup. Ct. 545. 37 Notes 21, 22, 23, 24, § 2942.

38 Brown v. Mize, 119 Ala. 10, 24 So. 453; Payne v. Crawford, 97 Ala. 604, 11 So. 725; Riley v. Hicks, 81 Ga. 265, 7 S. E. 173; Zook v. Spray,

43

40

within which the award shall be made.39 In some way the persons to act as arbitrators should be designated, but not necessarily by name.11 The validity of an agreement to arbitrate, in the courts of a state other than that in which it was made, is governed by the laws of the state where made. Where the submission is under the statute, the provisions of the statute must be complied with strictly. So in some states the arbitrators must be named in the submission, the party making demand must make a statement thereof and annex it to the submission, the submission must be acknowledged," must be under seal and attested," must contain an agreement for judgment to be entered upon the award,48 must be in writing, must designate the court of entry of the award,50 or name the parties. Where nothing appears to the contrary, the presumption is that the submission is in the

49

38 Iowa 273; Shackelford v. Purket, 2 A. K. Marsh. (Ky.) 435, 12 Am. Dec. 422; Bodge v. Hull, 58 Maine 225; Skillings v. Coolidge, 14 Mass. 43; Heglund v. Allen, 30 Minn. 38, 14 N. W. 57; Price v. White, 27 Mo. 275; Eastman v. Burleigh, 2 N. H. 484; Rixford v. Nye, 20 Vt. 132. 39 Curtis v. Potts, 3 M. & S. 145; Bent v. Erie Tel. &c. Co., 144 Mass. 165, 10 N. E. 778; French v. Shackford, 5 N. H. 143; Rogers v. Tatum, 25 N. J. L. 281.

40

Case v. Manufacturers' Fire &c. Co., 82 Cal. 263, 21 Pac. 843, 22 Pac. 1083; Greiss v. State Invest. &c. Co., 98 Cal. 241, 33 Pac. 195.

"It is sufficient to describe arbitrators by name of office. Tancred v. Steel Co. of Scotland, L. R. 15 App. Cas. 125.

"Green v. East Tennessee &c. R. Co., 37 Ga. 456; Titus v. Scantling, 4 Blackf. (Ind.) 89.

51

45

Bullard v. Coolidge, 3 Mass. 324;
Smith v. Kimball, 1 N. H. 72; Wil-
Cox v. Singletary, Wright (Ohio)
420.

46 Franklin Min. Co. v. Pratt, 101 Mass. 359; Davis v. Berger, 54 Mich. 652, 20 N. W. 629; Northwestern Guaranty Loan Co. v. Channell, 53 Minn. 269, 55 N. W. 121; Burkland v. Johnson, 50 Nebr. 858, 70 N. W. 388; Atwood v. York, 4 N. H. 50; Smadbeck v. Mt. Vernon, 124 App. Div. (N. Y.) 515, 109 N. Y. S. 70; Gessner v. Minneapolis R. Co., 15 N. Dak. 560, 108 N. W. 786.

47 Parmelee v. Allen, 32 Conn. 115; Moody v. Nelson, 60 Ill. 229; Estep v. Larsh, 16 Ind. 82; Detroit v. Jackson, 1 Doug. (Mich.) 106; Hollenback v. Fleming, 6 Hill (N. Y.) 303.

48

McKnight v. McCullough, 21 Iowa 111; Moody v. Nelson, 60 Ill. 229; Seaton v. Kendall, 171 Ill. 410, 49 N. E. 561; McGunn v. Hanlin, 29

43 See cases cited under notes 20, 27, Mich. 476. § 2942.

44 McKnight V. McCullough, 21 Iowa 11; Western Female Seminary v. Blair, 1 Disney (Ohio) 370, 12 Ohio Dec. 677; Franklin Min. Co. v. Pratt, 101 Mass. 359; Northwestern Guaranty Loan Co. v. Channell, 53 Minn. 269, 55 N. W. 121; Hill v. Taylor, 15 Wis. 190.

Pierce v. Pierce, 30 Maine 113;

49 See note 27. § 2942.

to Foust v. Hastings, 66 Iowa 522, 24 N. W. 22; Kendali v. Bates, 35 Maine 357. Compare Woelfel v. Hammer, 159 Pa. St. 448, 28 Atl. 147. Contra, Seaton v. Kendall, 61 Ill. App. 289, affd. 171 Ill. 410, 49 N. E. 561.

51

Wesson v. Newton, 10 Cush (Mass.) 114.

prescribed form.52 It has been held that the statute should be liberally construed and that substantial compliance is all that is necessary, and that the right to object to noncompliance with the statute may be waived. It has also been held that there may be a conditional submission.55

53

§ 2946. Amendment of submission.-The parties may amend or modify a submission at any time before the award is made.56 The terms of a written submission may be amended by parol.57 If the submission is under the statute, any amendment must comply with the original requirements, in order that judgment may be entered on the award.58 The court cannot alter a submission made a rule of court, without the consent of the parties, except in so far as to add something, to which in effect, the parties agreed. By consent of both parties, the arbitrators may be changed. One party alone has no right to change them." Where there is a rule of court, the court may not change the arbitrators without the parties' consent. Where one arbitra

59

61

60

225.

56

Merritt v. Thompson, 27 N. Y.

Shockley's Admr. v. Glasford, 6 Dana (Ky.) 9; Nashua & L. R. Corp. v. Boston & L. R. Corp., 157 Mass. 268, 31 N. E. 1060; Doane College v. Lanham, 26 Nebr. 421, 42 N. W. 405; George v. Farr, 46 N. H. 171; Freeman v. Adams, 9 Johns. (N. Y.) 115; Graham v. Graham, 9 Pa. St. 254, 49 Am. Dec. 557; Woods v. Page, 37 Vt. 252; Manlove v. Thrift, 5 Munf. (Va.) 493; Wilkinson v. Prichard, 145 Iowa 65, 123 N. W. 964, Ann. Cas. 1912A. 1259.

57 Nashua &c. R. Corp. v. Boston &c. R. Corp., 157 Mass. 268, 31 N. E. 1060; French v. New, 28 N. Y. 147, 2 Abb. Dec. (N. Y.) 209; Graham v. Graham, 9 Pa. St. 254, 49 Am. Dec. 557 (modification by parol of submission by specialty); Woods v. Page, 37 Vt. 252. See cases cited in previous note.

♫ Wilkinson v. Prichard, 145 Iowa

63

65, 123 N. W. 964, Ann. Cas. 1912A, 1259; Burghardt v. Owen, 13 Gray (Mass.) 300; Franklin Min. Co. v. Pratt, 101 Mass. 359; Lazell v. Houghton, 32 Vt. 579.

59

Rawtree v. King, 5 Moo. C. P. 167, 16 E. C. L. 391; Smurthwaite v. Richardson, 15 C. B. (N. S.) 463, 109 E. C. L. 463; Hickernell v. First Nat. Bank, 62 Pa. St. 146; Lazell v. Houghton, 32 Vt. 579; Rice v. Clark, 8 Vt. 109.

Evans v. Senor, 5 Taunt. 662, 1 E. C. L. 340; Vanderbyl v. McKenna, L. R. 3 C. P. 252; Morel v. Byrne, 28 L. T. 627; Thompsett v. Bowyer, 9 C. B. (N. S.) 284, 30 L. J. C. P. 1, 99 E. C. L. 284.

Snodgrass v. Armbrester, 90 Ala. 493, 7 So. 840; Browning v. McManus, 1 Whart. (Pa.) 177; Cooley v. Dill, 1 Swan. (Tenn.) 313; Manlove v. Thrift, 5 Munf. (Va) 493. See Woodbury v. Proctor, 9 Gray (Mass.) 18; McClure v. Gulick, 17 N. J. L. 340.

02 McCawley v. Brown, 12 B. Mon. (Ky.) 132.

63

Smith v. Warner, 14 Mich. 152; Girard v. Hutchinson, 2 Serg, & R. (Pa.) 188; Hills v. Home Ins. Co.,

64

66

tor does not act, the others have no general power to appoint another in his place, but the substitution of arbitrators may be provided for in the original submission. The time within which the award is to be rendered may be extended.65 Such extension may be by parol where the submission was under seal, or an agreement to extend the time may be implied from the parties proceeding with the arbitration after the time set for rendering the award." Arbitrators have no general power to extend the time, but may be given express power," which, however, must be exercised before the former time limit has expired," and a direction as to the manner of extension must be complied with.”1 If there is an extension, the award must be made within the extended time, unless there is a further extension. It has been held that where there was an extension "until" a certain day, an award made on that day was valid.73

68

72

§ 2947. Revocation of submission.-The general rule is that a common-law submission may be revoked by either party at any time before award." This has been held even where the

07

In re Hick, 8 Taunt. 694, 4 E. C. L. 340; Matthews v. Miller, 25 W. Va. 817.

es Mason v. Wallis, 10 Barn. & Cr. 107, 21 E. C. L. 107; Denton V. Strong, L. R. 9 Q. B. 117; Lazell v. Houghton, 32 Vt. 579.

See cases cited in note 49, ch. 3. Kirk v. Unwin, 6 Exch. 908; Burley v. Stephens, 1 M. & W. 156; Leggett v. Finlay, 6 Bing. 255, 19 E. C. L. 122; Payne v. Deakle, 1 Taunt. 509. 70 Good v. Wilks, cited in Tidd's Practice (4th Am. ed.) 827; Denton v. Strong, L. R. 9 Q. B. 117.

71

Leggett v. Finlay, 6 Bing. 255, 19 E. C. L. 122; Holmes v. Taylor, 33 Nova Scotia 415; Mason v. Wallis, 10 Barn. & Cr. 107, 21 E. C. L. 54.

72 See note 4, § 2962.

73

See cases cited in § 2962, note 6, et seq. Kerr v. Jeston, 1 Dowl. (N. S.) 538; Knox v. Simmonds, 3 Bro. C. Ch. 358.

"Cogswell v. Cogswell (Wash.), 126 Pac. 431; Elliott Ev., § 1686; Home Fire Ins. Co. v. Kennedy, 47 Nebr. 138, 66 N. W. 278, 53 Am. St. 521; Pizzini v. Hutchins, 70 Misc. (N. Y.) 94, 127 N. Y. S. 1043; Williams v. Branning Mfg. Co., 153 N. Car. 7, 68 S. E. 902, 31 L. R. A. (N. S.) 679n, 138 Am. St. 637n, 21 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 954 and note; Yost v. McKee, 179 Pa. 381, 36 Atl. 317, 57 Am. St. 604; McKenna v. Lyle, 155 Pa. 599, 26 Atl. 777, 35 Am. St. 910; Key v. Norrod, 124 Tenn. 146, 136 S. W. 991. See note 138 Am. St. 640-649, on Revocation of Agreements to Arbitrate, reviewing many cases. Sidlinger v. Kerkow, 82 Cal. 42, 22 Pac. 932; Randel v. Chesapeake & D. Canal Co., 1 Har. (Del.) 233; Memphis Trust Co. v. Brown-Ketcham Iron Works, 166 Fed. 398, 93 C. C. A. 162; Parsons v. Ambos, 121 Ga. 98, 48 S. E. 696; Heritage v. State,

78

submission was under seal," or there was an action pending when the submission was made,76 or the submission provided that it might be made a rule of court," or was under the judge's order," or provided for an ex parte proceeding if one party did not appear, or even, sometimes, when one party received a consideration, or when it was agreed that if one party failed to appoint an arbitrator, the other might act for him.81 It is usually held that even an express agreement that the submission is irrevocable does not prevent revocation.82 The general rule is that if made a rule of court, a submission is not revocable by one party. 83 The

80

43 Ind. App. 595, 88 N. E. 114; Harrison v. Hartford F. Ins. Co., 112 Iowa 77, 83 N. W. 820; Peter's Admr. v. Craig, 6 Dana (Ky.) 307; Gregory v. Pike, 94 Maine 27, 46 Atl. 793; Boston &c. R. Corp. v. Nashua &c. R. Corp., 139 Mass. 463, 31 N. E. 751; Chippewa Lumber Co. v. Phenix Ins. Co., 80 Mich. 116, 44 N. W. 1055; Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co. v. Cooper, 59 Minn. 290, 61 N. W. 143; Jones v. Harris, 59 Miss. 214; Donnell v. Lee, 58 Mo. App. 288; Butler v. Greene, 49 Nebr. 280, 68 N. W. 496; Dinsmore v. Hanson, 48 N. H. 413; Knaus v. Jenkins, 40 N. J. L. 288, 29 Am. Rep. 237; People v. Nash, 111 N. Y. 310, 18 N. E. 630, 2 L. R. A. 180n, 7 Am. St. 747; Norfleet v. Southall, 7 N. Car. 189; Zehner v. Lehigh Coal Co., 187 Pa. St. 487, 41 Atl. 464, 67 Am. St. 586, 43 Wkly. Notes Cas. 147; Sherman v. Cobb, 15 R. I. 570, 10 Atl 591; Bishop v. Valley Falls Mfg. Co., 78 S. Car. 312, 58 S. E. 939; Rogers' Heirs v. Nall, 6 Humph. (Tenn.) 29; Sartwell v. Sowles, 72 Vt. 270, 48 Atl. 11, 82 Am. St. 943; Rison v. Moon, 91 Va. 384, 22 S. E. 165; Riley v. Jarvis, 43 W. Va. 43, 26 S. E. 366. See also, King v. Joseph, 5 Taunt. 452, 1 E. C. L. 236.

Jones v. Harris, 59 Miss. 214; Allen v. Watson, 16 Johns. (N. Y.) 205; Aspinwall v. Tousey, 2 Tyler (Vt.) 328. But see post note 99.

76 But see post, note 99; Green v. Pole, 6 Bing. 443, 19 E. C. L. 203.

"Johnson v. Andress, 5 Phila. (Pa.) 8, 19 Leg. Int. (Pa.) 37; Keavy v. Shisler, 8 Phila. (Pa.) 54. 7 Green v. Pole, 6 Bing. 443, 19 E.

C. L. 203; Clapman v. Higham, 1
Bing. 87, 8 E. C. L. 415.

" Boston &c. R. Corp. v. Nashua &c. R. Corp., 139 Mass. 463, 31 N. E. 751.

60 Jones v. Harris, 59 Miss. 214; People v. Nash, 111 N. Y. 310, 18 N. E. 630, 2 L. R. A. 180n, 7 Am. St. 747. See Lewis's Appeal, 91 Pa. St. 359, and Haley v. Bellamy, 137 Mass. 357. It is held that, when founded on a valuable consideration, an agreement to arbitrate is irrevocable, in the cases of Guild v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 57 Kans. 70, 45 Pac. 82, 57 Am. St. 312, and Zehner v. Lehigh Coal &c. Co., 187 Pa. St. 487, 4 Atl. 464, 67 Am. St. 586.

81

Dickson Mfg. Co. v. American Locomotive Co., 119 Fed. 488; note 138 Am. St. 643.

82 Dickson Mfg. Co. v. American Locomotive Co., 119 Fed. 488; Heritage v. State, 43 Ind. App. 595, 88 N. E. 114; People v. Nash, 111 N. Y. 310, 18 N. E. 630, 2 L. R. A. 180n, 7 Am. St. 747; Power v. Power, 7 Watts (Pa.) 205; McKenna v. Lyle, 155 Pa. St. 599, 26 Atl. 777, 35 Am. St. 910; Tobey v. Bristol County, 3 Story (U. S.) 800, Fed. Cas. No. 14065; Sartwell v. Sowles, 72 Vt. 270, 48 Atl. 11, 82 Am. St. 943.

83

Bray v. English, 1 Conn. 498; Poppers v. Knight, 69 Ill. App. 578, Bash v. Christian, 77 Ind. 290, 84 Ind. 180; Cumberland v. N. Yarmouth, 4 Maine 459; Phillips v. Shipley, 1 Bland (Md.) 516; Haskell v. Whitney, 12 Mass. 47; Dexter v. Young, 40 N. H. 130; Bickham v. Denny, 1 N. J. L. 12; Tyson v. Robinson, 25 N. Car. 333; In re Lewis's Ap