case ELLITSON against comens declaration on a arbitrationbond be good first  although it do not appear that the award be under the seal of the arbitrator  second although the clause to make the submission a rule of court be not set  out and three although it be not say that the defendant have notice of the  award under a arbitrationbond submit cc all matter in dispute and all action  whatsoever c to the decision of the arbitrator a award that one of the party  shall pay to the other in satisfaction of all action depend whether in their  own right or as executor be good action on bind for the performance of a award  the submission be of all matter in dispute and of all action whatsoever depend  between the party the arbitrator award the defendant to pay thirtyseven pound  to the plaintiff in satisfaction of all action c as well of those which be  depend between they in their own right as of those which be bring as executor  c it appear that there be dispute between they in both right in their own and  as executor but in the submission it be not mention between they as executor c  only in very general word of all action c the defendant demand oyer of the  award and demurrer for these cause modern er p first that it be not set out to  be under the seal of the arbitrator which ought to have be a award can be make  by deed unless it be in write and if so it must be under seal also for every  deed must be seal otherwise it be but a parole agreement or award second that  it be not duly set out for that part which say the award shall be make a rule  of court be not take notice of in the declaration so there be a variance  between the declaration and the award set out upon oyer and salk be cite where  it be hold that if a man declare upon a deed be need only set forth so much as  will make for he but where he declare on a bind for performance of a award and  set out the award only as a collateral matter be must set out the whole and if  the omission be a material part of the award it will be fatal to the plaintiff  three that it be not say in the declaration that the defendant have notice of  the award be make modern fourthly which be the principal objection that the  arbitrator bad exceed their authority have award a matter between they as  executor which be not mention in the submission only in the general word all  action and dispute c which do not include it on a submission of all action c a  debt due to the plaintiff in right of his wife can be award a executor can  maintain a action in his own right and as executor both in the same suit  Duckworth v Tunstall barn ante b nor can he be charge in both right at once so  here under these general word a matter in both the right can be determine they  be of two different nature a submission be general of all controversy c and it  be hold that the award be bad because the arbitrator bad exceed their  commission a release c of all action right c will not include a action or  right c due as executor nor a demand which be future and not intend to be  release so a grant of in all respects good svan will not pass good which the  grantor have as executor unless he have no other good the plaintiff shall have  aver in the declaration that all matter in dispute between they be submit as  well those which be depend as executor as those in their own right and that  there be no other dispute between they but as executor and then those general  word may have help he as it will in the case of release of all action c but  without such averment it be bad a award may be good in part and bad as to part  but here they have award this as one entire sum and therefore must be bad for  the whole it be argue for the plaintiff as to the first objection it need not  be say to be under the seal of the arbitrator for the condition of the bind be  only so as a award be make in write c and nothing be say of its be under their  seal which will likewise answer the three objection as to the notice for the  plaintiff be not bind to give he notice of it and the defendant must know of  the award be make as well as the plaintiff as to the second objection that the  award be not duly set out the only omission be of the award be make a rule of  court now this be not in the arbitrator power to award for it lie in the  breast of the court whether they will do it or not and therefore can be no  part of the award for the most the party can do be to endeavour that it may be  make a rule of court as to the last objection which go to the substance of the  award the submission be in as general and comprehensive word as possible of  all action and cause of action depend between the party c the plaintiff be  executrix to her modern husband and it do not appear there be any other  dispute between they than as executor c shall therefore the put in these word  by way of explanation and strengthen the award make it bad and of no effect  which otherwise will be good in the case roll Abr pl Bulstr a in the margin  the submission be general as here of all action c between a and b the  arbitrator award a controversy between a and b in right of his wife as  administratrix to I S and it be hold good and to be include under the general  word if the submission be clear there needs no averment on the plaintiff side  but if modern er p the defendant have anything to allege against the award he  ought to plead it special and show wherein it be bad it be object the general  release which be to be give must be give in both the right which be not intend  by the submission but it will be for the defendant advantage to have a double  release and therefore ought not to be object to it be reply for the defendant  that the case in roll abridgement and in Bulst be different from this case  because there by the intermarriage the husband be liable for the wife debt and  they be consider but as one person and the husband be entitle to all she have  but in the case of a executorship the plaintiff sue in autre law and will be  liable only as Ion as there be asset this case be twice argue fn the first  argument absent lee chief justice the court say page justice at present I  think that the action be well bring and that these objection be of no weight  it be say that the award ought to be under the seal of the arbitrator as well  as in write but I think there be no occasion for it for on the statute of  fraud where certain agreement be order to be put into write it be not say they  shall be seal by the party because the perjury be prevent without it here the  award be set out on oyer and it appear by the testatum to be under hand and  seal both as to the second objection or rule of the award not be set out I  think here be sufficient for there be nothing omit but the make it a rule of  court which be not in the arbitrator power to enforce as to the last objection  it be true you can join a demand in your own right and as executor both in the  same action but it appear to I that the intention of the party in this  submission be to determine and end everything that be in dispute between they  whether in their own right or as executor and therefore I think the arbitrator  have not exceed their power probin justice if the arbitrator do not exceed  their commission it be no matter when the accord be make either before or  modern upon the day limit by the submission and therefore it need not be show  when it be make your position be right that a deed be not good unless it be  seal but in award it be otherwise for it may be by deed or write without seal  or by parole only and if the plaintiff show that they have do their duty and  not exceed the submission that be sufficient as to make the award a rule of  court that be no part of the condition but separate from it to the objection  that the arbitrator have exceed their authority in award a matter which be not  submit to they it be not recite in the bind of award that there be any dispute  between they as executor only say in general of all dispute c therefore it be  a doubt with I whether they have any authority to determine anything between  they as executor here be a sum in gross award in satisfaction of all action in  their own right or as executor and no notice be take how much be due as  executor and how much in their own right so that it can be distinguish how  much be asset and how much not but I give no opinion as to that yet chapel  justice of the same opinion as to the first three objection that they be of no  weight to the last objection the word be here as general as it be possible for  they to be but then it be say depend between the party or either of they and  it do not appear that there be a dispute between they as executor here it be  confine to pay what be due to the plaintiff as executor c in roll abridgment  it be hold a grant of in all respects good et catalla will only pass what the  grantor have in his own right and not what he have as executor so here will  call and all manner c determine everything on the second argument lee chief  justice the material objection here be that the arbitrator have exceed the  authority give they by the submission but I do not see how it can be more  general and extensive than it be here the case of the release of in all  respects good svan do not seem to come up to this case because the word svan  there confine it to the good which he have his jure only but here the  submission be of all action modern er p whatsoever and though it appear in cro  James that there be a averment that the controversy between they as executor e  be submit as well as any other yet there have be no case cite to show that a  averment be necessary the case in roll Abr pl be exact to this case the  plaintiff may make such averment if be please but I think the arbitrator have  do right and that judgement ought to be give for the plaintiff probin and  chapel justice be now of the same opinion with page justice as before  judgement be accord give for the plaintiff