ARMITT vers bream Intr hill Ann rot a award which direct the performance of a  act within a limit time a datum arbitration be good though it be not date SC  Mod salk holt debt upon a bind condition to perform the award of John Olley c  of and concern all suit c now depend between the say Charles bream and  Theophilus Armitt for or by reason or mean or on the account of any erection  edifice pile of wood pipe watercourse balcony backdoor way and passage or  other act matter cause or thing whatsoever by the say party or either of they  in or to the detriment damage annoyance and impediment or by infringe on the  right of the one or the other of they respective erect place build commit do  or suffer in upon or about all and every or any the message or tenement and  wharf with their appurtenance situate and be within the precinct of the  hospital of Bridewell London which they and each of they respective claim hold  and enjoy by from and under the mayor commonalty and citizen of the city of  London governor of the say hospital or any of they by virtue of any lease or  Lord Raymond er p assignment of lease or other power whatsoever and do and  shall produce and show to the say arbitrator or such of they as shall require  the same the lease assignment of lease or other power whereby the say  defendant hold his part of the premise or a true copy thereof to be peruse  Lord Raymond by the say arbitrator as they shall think fit c the defendant  plead that before the time limit by the arbitrator to make their award in  scilicet tiel jour ipse to lead forth et ostendeba to the arbitrator at their  request dimission et power per how idem the defendant to hold he parten  praemissor scilicet all men evidence urge et totum distinction suum insert per  eos perutend prout suitable to clean and the arbitrator make no award the  plaintiff reply and set out a award which replication as far as concern the  objection take and abate be this that the arbitrator the that of October do  make their award in write de et super to send forward in condition praedieta  superius specificatis and thereby do award that the scaffold and deal of the  south part of the house of the plaintiff shall be take down within day a datum  scribe arbitration c and no more scaffold shall be erect or build nor deal  pile between the river Thames and the aforesaid house of the plaintiff within  the breadth of the then light of the say house yet the ground to be use for  any good as a wharf by the defendant so that the window of the south part of  the say house of the plaintiff shall not be darken or obstruct and the  arbitrator do further award that the balcony of the south part of the house of  the plaintiff shall be take down if the defendant shall desire it within three  month next after the execution of the aforesaid award and the arbitrator do  further award that the drain and waterpipe which tunc to come beneath wharfam  prediction of the defendant ad australem parten prediction house prediction  the plaintiff shall remain as the same then be and that the defendant freedom  dart ad time agreed pro emendation et reparation ind si opportunity foret and  far that the wall of the west side of the plainiffs house be a partywall and  that if the defendant shall at any time hereafter build against it he shall  pay so much of the charge and half the charge of a party gutter and that the  water shall be bring down from thence super dietam wharfarn prediction the  defendant c and although the plaintiff have always keep and perform all thing  in the say award which be of his part to be keep and perform and protestand  that the defendant have not do so on his part the plaintiff in facto to say  that the scaffold on the south part of the house of the plaintiff in the write  of award aforesaid mention at any time within day a datum scribe arbitration  prediction be not take down secundum form et effecturn arbitration prediction  but the defendant the same scaffold on the south part of the house of the  plaintiff in the write of the award aforesaid mention a datum scribe  arbitration prediction by the space of day et ultra ibidem to join et thus far  to join to let pass contra form et execution arbitration prediction et Boe c  to this the defendant demurrer and the Lord Raymond plaintiff join in demurrer  this case be argue by Mr Montague and Mr Raymond for the defendant and by Mr  Broderick and Mr Eyre for the plaintiff and the exception insist on be that  the award be uncertain both as to the time when it shall be perform the  scaffold by the award be to be pull down within day from the date of the award  and it do not appear any where in the plaintiff replication that the award  have any date neither indeed have it any and also the award do not appoint who  shall take the scaffold down and this be as uncertain as salmon case   b cro  Elizabeth more where the award be nought for not appoint in what sum the  person shall be bind and yet Mr Raymond say a covenant or promise to enter  into a bind that the obligee shall enjoy certain land which be to have be the  condition in salmon case or for payment of money to the obligee without  mention in what sum the bind shall be be Acc   a cro Elizabeth a good and it  shall be understand accord to common intendment and in the one case shall be  to the value of the land and in the other double the money to be pay but it be  otherwise in case of award which must be final and where no averment or  intendment can be admit to supply the defect of certainty and make it good as  may be do in those other case and this be the stand difference and so be   a  salmon case and award have be hold to be nought for the like uncertainty as  the case of Massey and awbrey roll Abr style where in a award between landlord  and tenant the arbitrator award Lord Raymond er p among other thing that the  tenant shall pay the landlord the arrear of rend since the landlord purchase  and because it be uncertain what that be and the tenant can not come to the  knowledge of it but at the courtesy of the landlord or the vendor the award be  hold to be nought so the case in cro a award that a shall give security to b  for payment of at two day be hold to be Acc Str b void for the uncertainty  what security it shall be whether by bind or otherwise and though it be true  that a award may be good in part and void in part yet the breach be assign in  the nonperformance of this part of the award if this be void he can never have  his judgement another objection be that the arbitrator have make their award  of a matter that be not submit to they and so have exceed their authority for  it do not appear that the plaintiff house c be within the precinct of the  hospital of Bridewell London and though the award be plead to be make de et  super to send forward yet that will not help it and to this purpose the case  in dyer be cite where a submission to a award be for and concern the right c  of a certain parcel of land contain by estimation acre peremptory or urgent  call Helstorne Linge c the arbitrator award that Lord Raymond in the waste  land of the will of Helstorne the defendant shall have the break there grow  during his life c and in the replication set out the award there be a averment  that the parcel of land where the break grow be the say parcel of land call  Helstorne Linge for the right c of which the party submit to the award and the  award be hold to be nought for this among other reason because it be not of  the matter in submission nor of any generality that comprehend it but of  another matter and the averment of the party can expound the intent of the  arbitrator another objection be that the award be not mutual for that every  thing that be award to be do be for the benefit of the plaintiff and there be  nothing award to be do for the defendant there be another objection by Mr  Montague that the award be uncertain because it do not appear how many deal  there be nor who they be and that the arbitrator bad exceed their authority by  award that no more scaffold shall be erect nor deal pile between the river  Thames and the house of the plaintiff c for the future it be only pass  difference upon occasion of nuisance by pass erection which be submit to they  and that what be award for the defendant benefit videlicet that the plaintiff  balcony shall be take down be not award positive but conditional if the  defendant think fit and in another part of the award where it be award that  the defendant to let pass et to bear the plaintiff to have liberan way sive  transiturn England a passage ad et ab a stable and bayloft c it be uncertain  because it be not say what sort of a way whether with cart and carriage or on  foot to these objection it be answer that if the award have no date then the  word within day a datum must be from the delivery and so the time will be  certain enough for there be a averment in the replication that the award be  deliver one part to each of the party on the that of October beside the award  be plead to have be make the same day and that must be take to be the date and  that it bear date that day as to the uncertainty of the person who be to take  they down that be not a sufficient uncertainty to vitiate the award and as for  those case cite by Mr Raymond they be uncertainty in the thing that be to be  do this be a uncertainty only of the person that be to do the thing and not of  the matter to be do as those but if the uncertainty will vitiate the award  here be no uncertainty for take the whole award into consideration it appear  plain that it be the defendant bream ground and that appear first from that  clause of the award whereby it be award that the defendant shall use the  ground between the Thames and the south side of the plaintiff house as a wharf  second by that clause about the drain and waterpipe wherein it be Lord Raymond  express say that the wharf of the south side of the plaintiff house be the  defendant wharf and the wharf be the defendant he must be take to be the  person who do the nuisance by erect the scaffold and pile up the deal upon the  wharf and then the case be no more than if a debtor or a creditor shall submit  to a award and the arbitrator shall award that the debt shall be release or  that it shall be pay that will be a express award that the creditor shall  release in the one case and the debtor pay in the other so here the defendant  appear to be Lord Raymond er p the person that have do the nuisance the award  that it shall be take down be a express award that he shall take it down also  no body else can do it because by come on the defendant ground the plaintiff  will be a trespasser as to the objection that it do not appear that the house  be within the precinct of Bridewell hospital the averment that the award be  make de et super to send forward will help that as to the case in dier that be  a plain variance appear upon the face of the award but otherwise if there be  nothing appear upon the award itself which show it to be a matter out of the  submission the court will take the award to be of the matter in difference  Baspoles case   hob sand Ventr as to that objection that nothing be award for  the defendant there be that that he shall use the ground as a wharf and that  the balcony shall be take down if he please and the addition of it if the  defendant please make no difference because that be no more than the law say  as if a award be to pay money if the other please to receive it that will be  well then a exception be take to the plea that the defendant plead general  that he to lead forth c to the arbitrator c dismissionem et power per quas  idem the defendant to hold he parten praemissor scilicet all men evidence urge  et totum distinction suum insert c whereas he shall have set out the lease  particular and certain that the court may have adjudge whether it be a good  lease or no it be reply on the part of the defendant that there can be no  difference between a uncertainty in the thing to be do which be admit by the  counsel for the plaintiff to be nought and a uncertainty in the person who be  to do the thing for the thing can not do itself and that the wharf do not  appear to be the same wharf but may be another and as to the fault in the plea  that be now out of the case by the plaintiff reply and assign a insufficient  breach and it be compare to turner case   b if the defendant plead a  insufficient bar yet if by the plaintiff replication it appear that he have no  cause of action the Acc     b palm Bulstr cro James Litt Rep more Bulst side  hob Hardr sty arg post vide post a plaintiff shall never have judgement as  Lord Raymond in debt upon a bind to perform covenant the defendant plead a ill  bar and the plaintiff reply and assign a breach which of his own show appear  to be no breach the defendant shall have judgement so here the plaintiff have  assign his breach in a part of the award which be void he shall never have  judgement though the plea be admit to be insufficient because he have no cause  of action as to the main objection which be that it be not award who shall  remove the deal and scaffold the three justice be against the chief justice  the chief justice be of opinion first that it do not appear that the wharf be  the defendant ground all that appear be that the defendant be to use ground as  a wharf which do by no mean imply that he be to have the ground be but a  liberty but rather the contrary and beside if it bad appear that will not have  be sufficient because it ought to have be aver in the replication and which be  the second reason the chief justice give because it do not follow though it be  the defendant ground yet that he be bind to remove the deal unless he have be  award to do it kr the deal lie there be a nuisance to the plaintiff he may  lawful remove they Powell justice hold that as a plea in bar shall be take to  a common intent so a strong shall a award and that one part of a award may  explain another that it appear here plain upon this award that here be several  nuisance do by one neighbour upon his ground to the prejudice of another and  that these difference be submit by they to arbitrator to be determine in a  amicable way and therefore when the arbitrator come to award that the nuisance  shall be remove it must be understand that it shall be do by he that be owner  of the ground and do the nuisance for though any person or the plaintiff may  remove the nuisance yet that shall never be intend to be the design of the  arbitrator who intend to make a amicable end of this difference and be  resemble this to the case of Edward b where the condition of a obligation be  that the great bell of mildenhall shall be carry to the house of the obligee  in n at the cost of the man of m and there weigh and melt down in the presence  of the man of m and the obligee shall make of it a tenor c though it be not  say who shall weigh the bell yet it be adjudge that the brazier who be the  obligee shall do it Lord Raymond er p because it belong to his occupation to  do it so here the owner of the land be the proper person to remove the  scaffold beside if a man be bind in a bind condition that such scaffold in his  ground to the nuisance of the oblige house shall be take down by such a day  the obligor will be bind Lord Raymond to take it down so here in the same  manner the condition of the bind be for performance of a award and the award  be that the scaffold shall be take down the award be parcel of the condition  of the bind and will have the same effect as if it have be insert in the  condition the other justice be of the same opinion that it do appear that the  wharf be the defendant and therefore he ought to take down the scaffold c as  to the exception of the uncertainty of the time when the scaffold be to be  take down the court hold that that be certain enough for if the award have no  date the time must be compute from the delivery and that be one sense of act  of giving they hold also that the award be mutual and that the defendant plea  be well enough for he be only to produce such a lease as he have they hold  also that the number of deal be not material and that the award that no more  deal shall be erect for the time to come will do no harm for it do not bind  the inheritance but be void as to that and if any of the other exception be  material yet a award may be good in part and void in part and the breach be  assign in a part of the award which be good the plaintiff ought to have  judgement and judgement be give for he by three judge against the chief  justice afterward error be bring on the judgement in the exchequer Chamber but  before argument the party agree