case LINGOOD versus eaden January plea and demurrer SC ante a plea to a bill  bring to set aside a award and for a general account Lord Hardwicke allow it  as against the general account but hold that the plaintiff be not preclude at  the hear from object to the award or fraud or partiality in the arbitrator the  plaintiff prefer his petition on the that of march last to set aside the award  in the matter between he and eaden which be dismiss but without prejudice to  his bring a bill for the like purpose he bring a bill accord against the  arbitrator and eaden and pray by it that he man have a inspection of pound the  account from which the arbitrator frame their award and that it may be set  aside and that the defendant bid may account general for all transaction  during his partnership with the plaintiff the defendant eaden plead that in  former cause between he and the plaintiff in this court a order be make the  that of November at the request and by the consent of the party that all  matter in difference between they relate to their joint deal or otherwise  shall be refer to Charlton c and the award to be make on saint of may then  next and by a subsequent order of court with the consent of the plaintiff  counsel the time for make the award be enlarge till the saint of November and  by a three order till the saint of February that the arbitrator meet fortyfive  time and upward the plaintiff and defendant be present at the great part of  the meeting and have full hear and examine the plaintiff and the defendant and  their several witness make their award within the time limit and among other  thing declare that they have take a account of the outstanding debt due to or  owe by or from the complainant and the defendant or either of they on account  of their joint deal and they award that each shall pay and discharge one equal  moiety of the several debt therein mention that be to say to Samuel torin  pound S d to Slingsby Bethel pound S d and to John hide pound which the say  arbitrator find to be then remain due from the complainant and defendant or  one of they on their joint account be the same more or less than as  abovementioned atkins that the arbitrator have set forth in a schedule to  their award a account of sundry debt and effect owe to the partnership amount  to pound S d which debt and security they award to belong in moieties to the  plaintiff and the defendant and for the better get in the same the arbitrator  do thereby recommend it to the defendant and the complainant to consent that a  order may be make by this court for the appoint a proper person conversant in  mercantile affair to collect in the same for their joint use and in case  either of the party shall refuse to consent thereto the arbitrator do make it  their humble request to this court to order the same as the most probable mean  to prevent future litigation between the say party that the arbitrator do  award and declare that exclusive of the above matter there be then due from  the plaintiff to the defendant pound S d on a just balance which they award to  be pay by the plaintiff to the defendant by instalment of pound on each  payment with interest at per cent from the d of the same February that last  they do award that upon payment of the say pound S d by the plaintiff his  executor c to this defendant his executor c they the say plaintiff and this  defendant their respective executor and administrator shall atkins er p mutual  execute and deliver to each other respective a good and sufficient release and  discharge the form thereof to be previous settle by one of the master of this  court in case this court shall be please to give direction for the settle  thereof whereby the say party shall respective release to each other all  matter in difference between they relate to their joint deal c the defendant  for plea further say that all that say particular so award be fair and just  all which matter and thing the defendant plead in bar to the plaintiff bill  and submit to the court whether he be oblige to make any further or other  answer Mr Murray counsel for the plaintiff confine himself to the objection  against the award because be say the plea of the award must fall to the ground  if the award itself be not good a award must be the judgement of the  arbitrator and final and it have be hold to be a bad award where the  arbitrator direct that cost shall be pay accord to taxation the first  objection he take be that here the arbitrator award that the debt due from the  partnership shall be pay in atkins moieties by Lingood and bid and then  mention only three debt so that in this respect it be not final the second  objection that the arbitrator recommend it to the party to consent that a  order may be make by this court for the appoint a proper person to receive in  the debt due to the partnership be depute a three person to do a act which  ought to have be do by themselves and therefore be not that their own  judgement the three objection that the arbitrator ought to have settle the  release themselves and not have leave it to be do by a master under the order  and direction of this court and cite salk glover v Barrie that upon the whole  it be not a complete award and therefore the plaintiff shall be admit to go on  with his bill for a account notwithstanding the award Mr attorney general  counsel for the defendant bid in answer to the second objection with regard to  the receiver say the arbitrator can not do otherwise as it be uncertain what  will be get in and therefore they can not award the exact sum to each of the  party but to divide when receive Lord chancellor then put this case to Mr  attorney general which come before he when he be chief justice arbitrator have  award that each of the party shall give security to perform the award but  leave it to a three person to settle the security and for this reason hold it  to be a void award compare now this case with the present where the arbitrator  have refer it to a three person to get in the debt due to the partnership to  this Mr attorney general say the award be final as to the property but the  mean of ascertain that property be only recommend to be leave to a person  appoint by the court in the case mention by your lordship the arbitrator  actual transfer to a three person a power which belong sole to themselves as  to the objection that the award be bad because the form of the release be  leave to a master as long as the substantial part the award a release of all  demand be provide for by the arbitrator the bare leave it to a master to  settle the form of the release can never vitiate the award Mr Murray the  solicitor general say in reply the arbitrator here have award thing out of the  submission that affect the justice of the case between the party which vitiate  the whole award and consequent be no bar to the account atkins Lord chancellor  though the bill be bring for two purpose yet one be consequential to the other  first to set aside the award second for a general account the proper of the  bill to set aside the award must be find upon the fraud corruption or  misbehaviour of the arbitrator Kampshire v young ante for it will be improper  to come into this court to set it aside mere for a objection in point of form  vide champion v Wenhan Amb the other part of the bill be the original right he  have before the award I must consider the plea as it be plead to the latter  part of the bill the general account for to be sure the plaintiff be entitle  to a account unless the award be a bar and therefore the court must enter into  all the legal objection against the award which atkins er p a court of law  will have do as it be insist on by the plea to prevent the general account I  own I have be a good deal doubtful as to the nicety that court of law have use  in determine award for they have former go so far as to make it almost  impossible for arbitrator to do what be the main intention of the submission  the put a end to difference between party but now court of law themselves have  in some measure depart from very strict rule as where arbitrator refer cost to  be tax the judge have compare award to judgement at law which though they must  have certainty yet the officer tax cost and therefore where arbitrator give  such direction it shall not vitiate the award winter v garlic salk Mod can S c  Com though in the old case it have be hold that arbitrator can not in any  instance delegate their power it may possible be worth while for I to consider  as court of law themselves have relax from their rigour and nicety in  determine award whether court of equity may not still take great latitude but  I be unwilling to do this because it will introduce confusion and uncertainty  and make award a mix case partly determine by arbitrator and partly by the  authority of this court and therefore choose rather to confine myself to one  rule atkins as to the first objection with regard to debt due from the  partnership I will not lie any weight upon it for as court of law have say  they will never make a presumption to overturn a award so neither will I in  this case presume that there be any other debt due from the partnership than  what be mention by the arbitrator themselves as to the second objection with  regard to the receiver which be recommend by the arbitrator I own I have great  doubt but as the justice between the party be the material thing and the award  be good to a common intent answer the purpose of party in submit to a  reference I be of opinion it be sufficient for in case of this sort in  mercantile affair which can admit of certainty it will be too nice to defeat  award upon objection of this kind it have be say by the plaintiff counsel that  the arbitrator recommend it to the party to consent that a order may be make  by this court for the appoint a receiver c and in case of the party refusal to  consent thereto the request the court to order the same be a delegation of  their power which arbitrator can do low v low roll ab pl ibidem pl and to be  sure if they have delegate their power the award be void for the whole but Mr  attorney general say what the arbitrator have do in this respect be at most  but surplusage yet if it affect the justice of the thing submit it will not be  surplusage but this seem to I to be only a recommendation of the arbitrator to  the party which be not tie they clown to submit that a person shall be so  appoint but leaves they at large and if the party do not approve of this  scheme why then it be surplusage only and not a delegation of their power the  question be whether the arbitrator award that the debt due to the partnership  when receive shall be divide in moieties between the party be sufficient and I  be opinion it be for the arbitrator have no control over the debtor themselves  who may pay if they please the whole to one of the partner to lie it down for  a rule that arbitrator must chalk out particular the method in which the award  be to be carry into execution will be too nice and overturn a great number of  award for if this doctrine be to prevail suppose one of the party shall  release a debt due to the partnership it will be atkins a breach of the award  for who to take apart medium to take apart that which divides and the other  party can have no remedy but either to bring a action or a bill for carry the  award into execution while will make it endless and no award can ever be  effectual to finish dispute between party I can think of any other method the  arbitrator can have pursue for though it have be say at the bar that they may  have direct the party to give such person as the arbitrator shall appoint a  letter of attorney to get in the debt yet this will not have be adviseable  because if the person so depute have prove insolvent it will have be doubtful  whether the arbitrator themselves may not have be liable the last objection be  the arbitrator leave it to a master to settle the form of the release atkins  er p now the general rule in regard to make award be this that arbitrator  shall award each party to give a release and if they do not it be at the peril  of the party here it be in the first place full and complete describe in the  award what the party shall do in point of give release and then follow the  reference to the master to settle the form if the award have say that the  release shall be settle by the court first and then the arbitrator will  consider whether they shall order a release between the party this will have  be very different and I shall have incline to think it a delegation of their  power and the award consequent void but here they have award release and only  leave it to the court if they think proper to give direction to a master to  settle the form and it will be very extraordinary when I think the arbitrator  have do all that be necessary and there be no occasion for the court to  interfere yet because they have say we leave it to the court therefore I must  interpose mere for the sake of make that a bad award which without my  interposition will be a good one upon the whole I be of opinion the award be  good to a common intent and the plea consequent must be allow against the  general account but the plaintiff be not preclude at the hear of the cause  from object to the award for fraud or partiality in the arbitrator Reg lib b  fol