CHICOT v LEQUESNE June see gardener v Fooks W r award make by two arbitrator  out of three through the unjust exclusion of the three by one of the other set  aside with cost to be pay by that person and the material party in favour of  who it be make see the order of the court supplement p et vide Ves jun as to  some general point on award see travers v earl Stafford ante Morgan v Mather  Ves jun dick v Milligan ibidem c Lord Lonsdale v Littledale ibidem in street v  rigby Ves young v Walter Ves Featherstone v Cooper ibidem water v tailor Ves v  mill Ves Anderson v darcy Ves Ching v Ching Ves young v Walter where above and  Steff v Andrews mad Rep on bill to set aside a award it be insist the only  relief can be in this court however partial corrupt c the award be the party  not have proceed under the statute king will cap which give a summary remedy  even to court of law provide they pursue that statute but this be not a  submission make a order of any court and therefore the obligor in the bind can  defend himself at law by say the award be partial or corrupt note his lordship  say it will be very strange if there can be no defence at commonlaw on a  action bring on a award by corruption but he know no case of that then no  court of law can give relief it must be in equity which often set aside award  and give that relief arise out of the case as by direct account or grant  injunction to stay all legal proceed which have be on the foundation of its be  a good award though bill of this court come with some prejudice as arbitrator  be of the party own choose and in general this court lean very hard against  they yet if on partiality it shall not relieve it will give arbitrator too  great power and prevent the expeditious attain of justice the question then be  on the merit and evidence on both side whether this award ought to stand of  the three arbitrator g vine and Myhill the award be make without the latter  hear it or have a opportunity of conference to convince the other or be  convince two can exclude a three for will if arbitrator give not sufficient  time or award upon account without look into they or will not hear or but one  side a court of law will infer that misbehaviour mention in the statute in not  act as a fair judge then this court will go by the same rule it ought to be as  fair and open as a trial by a jury wherever a number by election of the party  be to exercise a judicial authority as it be to be final in the first instance  almost the only case where so these judgement shall be fair and open or equity  will interpose vesey senior award without hear though just be not good for it  be just by accident if a corporate body be to do a corporate act not on a  corporation day every member shall be present as determine by your lordship in  b r Corbet Kynaston v mayor of Shrewsbury where fifteen alderman concur as  find in the verdict the whole court hold it a void act the sixteenth not be  summon who reason may have convince the rest so wherever power be delegate it  be in evidence that at a meeting vine say he will consider and judge on plain  fact g say he shall not mind fact that be convince Mr Letellier have misuse  the Lequesnes and have it now in his power he will mulct his representative  Lord chancellor say he will require a very particular answeras to this fact  before he wouldlet this award stand for no judge public or private ought to  say so the answer give for defendant be that they be word of warmth and  passion vesey senior er p arise from the heat of the debate between vine and g  and that this be the result of his judgement after have enter into the merit  next this fact be not put in issue there be nothing in the bill relative to it  the charge be only general as to partiality and some special charge as to  other matter so that it come into the cause by surprise by deposition at the  hear Lord chancellor I have not receive a answer to my satisfaction to that  which be say by g the arbitrator who appear to be the principal judge in this  matter and make his declaration as it be swear at the only meeting in which  all the three arbitrator meet which be at all material and which be if true  declare a direct wrong a partial rule of judge and mistake his office not be a  arbitrator to fine the party or to go accord to his belief only but accord to  evidence such as the nature of the case will admit and decree a satisfaction  to the party suppose they be word of warmth only they be a declaration make by  a person who be to judge and if he carry that heat and passion into execution  I ought not to suffer it to stand if it be the result of his judgement on the  merit it be a partial result it be very near to the case of Mr ware of hackney  v periam for which I have send for the register book lib b fol it come twice  before the court and be a bill to set aside a award by walker and two person  out of three just as this be who join in make if it be a reference to put a  end to a cause long depend in which a account be before the master vesey  senior there be a clause in the bind of submission that the submission shall  be make a rule of court on motion of either party after the award make  plaintiff move b r to make that submission a rule of court and the same day  move to set the award aside brown which he can not do without its be make a  rule of court a rule be make to show cause why it shall not be set aside on  partiality and misbehaviour in the arbitrator on show cause the court be  divide and so the award can not be set aside then defendant move for  attachment in not perform the award the court be still equal divide so no  attachment can be consequent periam can have no advantage of the submission be  make a rule of court and therefore bring a common action on the bind of  submission plaintiff bring his bill in this court mere to be relieve against  the award pray no other particular relief except the general there be indeed a  distinction between the two case that be a reference in a matter in difference  in a cause before so that if that be set aside there will be no want of relief  because the account will go on before the master defendant by his answer  insist that this be determine by b r and therefore the award ought not to be  set aside it be hear by Lord Macclesfield April who be a little stagger with  the proceed in b r be a award by virtue of a submission within the act of  parliament and doubt whether he shall enter into it to give relief when the  whole matter be subject to the jurisdiction of a court of commonlaw who have  inquire into it and be not of opinion to set it aside all he do therefore at  first be to refer it to the master to state what have be do in it by b r who  state as aforesaid on this Lord Macclesfield be of opinion there be no  determination of b r either way not have think fit to set aside or to affirm  the award because they refuse the only process to carry it into execution a  attachment and therefore he hold and very right it be as a bare bind of award  without be make a rule of court and if a court of commonlaw which have this  summary jurisdiction refuse to exercise it and leave the party on one side to  take relief by his action it leave the party on the other to take relief by  bill in equity then walker have say he will make ware pay the cost which be  relative to the suit before the master it be such a declaration that though  Floyd the other arbitrator join in the award as have be do here  notwithstanding that the court decree satisfaction to be acknowledge on the  judgement on the bind of submission and decree walker who have join in this  award after this declaration of his to pay the cost of the suit this be a very  just decree and be a very strong authority as to the general question unless a  answer be give which bring we to the other answer to vesey senior this of the  fact not be in issue which be considerable it do not appear that that  declaration of walker be put in issue in that cause and no weight be to be lie  on the objection in point of form and regularity for if a bill be to set aside  a award bind or deed for fraud imposition partiality of undue practice it be  not necessary in the bill to charge minutely every particular circumstance for  that be a matter of evidence every part of which be not to be charge but  notwithstanding when the cause turn on it and no notice or opportunity be  vesey senior er p give to the other side to answer it the court ought if  possible to put it in some further method of inquiry as there have be no  opportunity for defendant to examine as to this and the plaintiff may have  examine the other arbitrator Myhill which he have not do I rest it on the  examination of vine I will direct g and m both to be examine on interrogatory  before the master relate to it but if it shall come out that g do make that  declaration I shall follow the precedent and make g pay the cost for  notwithstanding a arbitrator be a indifferent person if the court be not to  lie weight on such thing arbitration will be very arbitrary thing indeed Reg  lib a fol vide supplement p