coke b BASPOLES case hill James a award that one shall pay so much to the  other in consideration of a debt long due and for his cost thereby sustain be  mutual when the submission be of all controversy and the award be make of the  say premise in the say condition specify and only one matter be adjudge upon  the award be good and it shall be intend that be award be make of all that be  refer to the arbitrator although there be many thing in controversy yet if one  only be notify to the arbitrator he may make his award of that if several  thing in particular be refer with a condition that the award be make of the  premise c the arbitrator must make his award of all or the award will be void  otherwise where there be no such condition SC Brownl cro James SC but not S p  Bulstr William freeman bring a action of debt on a bind of hear date April a  James against John Baspole the defendant demand oyer of the condition which be  that if the within bind John Baspole c shall well and true stand to abide  fulfil and keep the award arbitrament order rule judgement and final  determination of Francis Theobald gentle indifferent name elect and choose as  well on the part and behalf of the say John Baspole as of the say William  freeman for to order judge rule and final determination to make of all matter  suit debt duty action and demand whatsoever bad make or depend between the say  John and William from the beginning of the world until the day of the date  hereof so as the say award order and final end be make and give up under the  hand and seal of the say Francis Theobald to either of the say party at or  before the Feast of saint James the apostle next ensue that then this present  obligation to be void and plead that the arbitrator no one fecit arbitration c  de et super prmissis in condition prd specificat the plaintiff reply that the  arbitrator June a Reg nunc by his write make a order and award between the say  William and John de et super prmissis predict modus et form following  videlicet that whereas a suit be depend between the say John Baspole and  William freeman for a debt due by William Baspole father of the say John  Baspole decease to Robert freeman father of the say William freeman decease  which just debt be to be pay by seven year then pass to the say Robert freeman  and now due to William freeman as administrator of his father which debt the  say John Baspole pro good considerate coke a promise to pay to the say William  as upon good proof appear to the arbitrator that the say John Baspole shall  pay to the say William freeman in consideration of the say debt long due and  for his great cost in that part sustain the sum of and that after he request  the say John Baspole to pay the say sum f which he refuse c upon which the  defendant demurrer in wonder and two objection be make against this  arbitrament because the arbitrament be make of a roll Rep cro James Cr  Elizabeth h a Fitzherbert abrutus tree Br abrutus tree Poph Leon roll die pl a  the one part and not of the other as in h b that one party shall go quit of  all action have by the other against he and nothing be speak of the action  which he have against the other and therefore void it do not appear coke  report b er p that this matter of which he make the arbitrament be the matter  only which be between they for the submission be general of all action and  demand b Cr Elizabeth Cr James Cr car march abrutus tree Noy Brownl roll roll  Rep Bulst alein side hut Yelv hard Leon b so as the say award be c so that if  he do not make the award of all matter in controversial points the award be  void to which it be answer and resolve that as to the first the award be  sufficient c dyer pl roll Brownl march arbitre cro James c and good for here  the award be as well of the one part as of the other for the one receive money  and the other be discharge of the debt and of his promise to pay it and be not  like the say case of h for there one will be discharge of the action and the  other will receive nothing in satisfaction thereof vide d roll Rep Bulstr d e  b a in veil v Warner sand where in debt on bind the award appear on the plead  to have be make of and upon the premise in the condition and to have award  that one party shall pay to the other a sum of money and also give he a  general release the court be of opinion that the award be have for want of  mutuality this decision which be at variance with the first resolution in  Baspoles case be successful combat by Mr serjeant William will ib nothing more  be requisite to form the mutuality of a award than that the thing award to be  do shall be a final discharge of all future claim by the party in who favour  the award be make against the other for the cause submit therefore a award  that one shall pay the other so much for a trespass be good Nichols v Grunnion  hob Horton v Benson Freem ayland v Nicholls ib Ormlade v cook cro James so  also a award that the defendant shall pay the plaintiff for cost in a suit  commence against they by the defendant without cause and that all suit and  difference shall cease Walmough v Holgate Ventr squire v grevill Mod so a  award that the defendant shall pay a sum of money and take his mare c from the  plaintiff within a week be good Cooper v Hirst Lutw so also a award to pay and  the cost in a suit to the plaintiff be good thomlinson v Avriskin Com so also  a award that all suit and controversy shall cease c be good Harris v knipe lev  Edward v pierce comb vin ab abrutus tree king pl so also a award recite that  several difference have be between the plaintiff and defendant concern a house  and diverse elm and arrear of rend they the arbitrator to make a final end of  all award that the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff for all the say arrear  of rend be good and sufficient mutual because the word for the arrear signify  in satisfaction of the arrear and although the award recite other matter yet  it shall be intend that such matter be otherwise determine or at least the  award say to make a end of all difference shall be take to mean that the be in  satisfaction of every thing the other not appear but by the recital of the  award itself hopper v Hacket I lev so also a award which after recite that  there have be deal between the party and that be due to the plaintiff award  payment of that sum Elliott v chivell I Lutw and it do not appear to be  necessary that the award itself shall express that a sum award to be pay or a  act to be do in favour of one of the party shall be in satisfaction or that it  shall contain any equivalent term a discharge of the other party must  necessary be presume roll Arb king pl but qure whether the award must not  express for what cause the payment be to be make Nichols v Grunnion hob in the  case above the award recite that they be make of and concern the premise but  it seem that such award will be good although they do contain any such recital  if they contain a recital of the matter that be refer grey v Gwennap I barn  and Ald a as to the second objection it be answer and resolved I that it  appear by the award that it be make a side hut roll Rep hob Cr Elizabeth Cr  James Cr car a de coke report a er p prmissis prd in condition prd specificat  which word imply that he have make a arbitrament of all that which be refer to  he and so shall it be intend until the contrary be show and allege by the  other party for when the submission be general of all action c b   b roll Rep  keb side b generale nothing fixed be intimately associated and therefore it  may well stand with the generality of the word that there be but one cause  depend in controversy between they but where the submission be of c Cr  Elizabeth hob Hardr die pl march abrutus tree Cr James Leon c certain thing in  special and with a proviso or condition that the award be make de prmiss c or  word which be tantamount there the arbitrator ought to make the award of all  otherwise it be void but if diverse thing in special be submit d Cr Elizabeth  Cr James dyer b hob d without such conditional conclusion the arbitrator may  make the award of any of they b serjeant William observe n Berks v trippet  sand a these nice distinction be now disregard court of justice be at present  more liberal in the construction of award than former and therefore a award  may be good though make of less than be contain in the submission as if the  submission be of all action trespass demand and controversy and the award be  make of some only the award be good for no more shall be presume to have be  make know to the arbitrator but if in fact other cause of action be make know  to the arbitrator then such award will be bad as well where the submission be  conditional with a ita quod as where it be absolute Hawkins v colclough I bar  Bac ab Vid simmonds v swain taunt Bradford v Ryan will when the submission be  of all action c and also of two distinct matter of difference and the award  recite the submission omit to decide one of such distinct matter the court  hold that the award be bad and refuse to enforce performance by a attachment  Randall v Randall east and Vid Middleton v week cro James winter v Hunton b  more it be a good defence to a action bring for the nonperformance of a award  that the arbitrator have not decide all those matter submit to they of which  they have notice Mitchell v stavely east Ingram v Milnes east in dowse v Cox  bing best CJ observe the old law be clear that if the reference be general  without any express stipulation that the arbitrator shall decide on all matter  refer to he the award may be good for part and this law have not be alter for  the case of Mitchell v stavely contain a express stipulation that the  arbitrator shall decide on all the premise Lord Ellenborough say it be a  condition of the submission that they be to award upon all matter in  difference between the party but it seem that Mitchell v stavely be not decide  upon the ground of the submission contain a ita quod but because the matter in  difference not decide upon have be notify to the arbitrator it be hold holland  v brook TR that a party can impeach a award for matter not appear upon the  face of it upon show cause against a rule for a attachment for not perform it  but he shall obtain a rule for that purpose within the time limit by the Act  of parliament b and as it be of diverse particular thing so it be of diverse  particular person and therefore if two on the one part and one on the other  part submit themselves the arbitrator may make a arbitrament between one of  the two of the one part and the other of the other part and it will be good c  Acc roll ab abrutus tree d Athelston v moon and Willis Com carter v carter  vern in winter v while Brod and bing SC b more it be hold that a submission of  all matter in difference between party import all matter which any individual  party may have joint or several against any other for the submission be to be  construe distributive therefore where upon a reference by bind it be award  that a sum of money shall be pay by one obligor to a coobligor the award be  hold good Richardson I dissent observe upon the case of carter v carter that  the marginal note be not warrant by the case itself and as to the case cite  from brook that there be a note to it as follows  But it seem clear that the  arbitrator have not authority to determine or arbitrate matter between the  three the party on one side for they make one party against a four but he may  determine between any of the three and this four and further observe that this  distinction appear to he to be find in reason and principle c although there  be many matter in coke report b er p controversy yet if one only be a Cr James  hob march abrutus tree a signify to the arbitrator he may make a award of that  for the arbitrator be in lieu of a judge and his office be to determine second  instigation et let and the duty of the party who be grieve and know their  particular grief be to signify their coke b cause of controversy to the  arbitrator for they be privy to they and the arbitrator a stranger and each  ought to do that which lie in his knowledge and if other construction shall be  make many arbitraments may be avoid for one may conceal a trespass commit or  other secret cause of action give he and so avoid the award et expedit  reipublic b   a a a   b   b   a Bulstr godb hard   light a b ut sit Finis a  strife and this be like Cullamors case on the Elizabeth cap statute of  bankrupt in the second part of my report fol b which provide that equal  distribution shall be make of the bankrupt good between all the c hob hut c  creditor but that be as it be there resolve to be intend of those who will  come in and signify their debt and hereby you will better understand your book  in h e h r Elizabeth dyer Elizabeth dyer