Barnardiston king b Philip and Knightley vide ante this matter come on again  to be argue upon another record wherein there be the same order of plead and a  demurrer to the replication Mr fazakerly rely upon that single objection to  the award that the arbitrator have not put a end to the action between martial  and the plaintiff but have only give the plaintiff a action of covenant  against martial in case he shall proceed in it Mr draper however submit it on  the other hand that the award be good enough in roll Abridg and cro he say it  be hold that if two person be coobligors and defendant in a action and enter  into bind of submission and the arbitrator award that the one obligor shall  acquit the other of the bind due to the stranger this award be good though the  obligee may immediate put the bind in suit against both obligors and  consequent the other obligor may immediate be molest he cite Mod to the same  purpose he say beside that in roll it be hold that arbitrator may award that  one man shall enter into a bind to pay money to another and not direct to pay  it and in cro it be hold that where a award be make that all matter in  difference shall be determine except what relate to such a bind but that that  shall stand in force such award be good and yet there all difference be not  determine so he say it be a know rule that arbitrator may appoint cost to be  tax by a officer of the court and for these reason he submit it that the award  be good but Mr fazakerly by way of reply answer that as to the case first cite  the arbitrator have award all that be in their power but in the present case  they have not and as to the case in roll he observe that it be beyond dispute  arbitrator may appoint money to be pay at a future day and consequent may  require security to be give for it in the mean time so the case in cro he say  that the arbitrator do make their award concern the bind as well as concern  the other difference and award that that shall stand as a good security which  be make a determination of that matter as well as the other and to the last  case he take notice that arbitrator can be suppose to be the proper judge of  cost of suit and it be for that reason arbitrator be allow the assistance of  one of the officer of the court the whole court declare their opinion to be  that the award can not be maintain the reason which the chief justice give be  that if martial shall proceed in his action such proceed will not be so much a  breach of the award as of the covenant but the reason which the three other  judge give be that the covenant require martial to indemnify the plaintiff  against all cost and damage which shall attend the other action but those  damage can be ascertain but by a jury in a second action and therefore there  be plain no end put to all the difference however the court order this matter  to stand over vide post