CAYHILL versus Fitzgerald b r vide comens shelf and Baily post judgement of  the court condition of arbitration bind that g f shall perform such award as  shall be make between plaintiff and I f and award that I f the defendant shall  pay plaintiff S d and release in debt upon a arbitration bind defendant crave  oyer of the bind and condition which recite that whereas there be difference  between one John Fitzgerald and plaintiff concern a certain debt due from he  to plaintiff upon a bind for now the condition c that if the say George  Fitzgerald the defendant for and on the behalf of say I f shall perform such  award as arbitrator shall make on or before such a day between plaintiff and I  f the bind to be void and plead that the arbitrator do not make any award  plaintiff reply that fall and foster the arbitrator make a award and set it  forth that George Fitzgerald shall Wilson king bench er p pay S d and that  plaintiff shall receive the same in full of all demand and that they shall  execute release and assign breach that defendant do not pay the money  defendant demurrer and plaintiff join in demurrer Mr clive for the defendant  object to the award that it be have because not make between the party to the  submission for the award be that g f the defendant shall pay to mic Cahill and  it ought to have be between the party videlicet Cahill and I f between who the  submission be if the arbitrator go out of the submission the award be have  more and beedle cite in Rep roll ab p dly this award be have because not  mutual between the party for it be a rule in law that a award can be on one  side only and there be no difference between plaintiff and g f in the case of  not and long mich g b r Lord Hardwicke lie down be it that a award must be  certain and make a final end between the party dly that the arbitrator can  delegate their authority but must act in person dly that they can in no case  enlarge their power and Bacon v Carthew be cite as in point Floyd contra that  the award be good for that g f do submit and the word of the bind be g f for  and on the part and behalf of I f and he bind himself his heir executor c for  and on his and their part and behalf therefore it be as well on the part of g  f as of I f dly the award be mutual for the money be to be pay by g f in full  of all demand and that release shall be execute and to show that g f be liable  as well as I f cite I roll ab p but clive in Wilson king bench his reply say  that in that case c submit Yelv Talbot and Godbolt and a release to g f will  discharge I f for release be to be construe secundum to throw under means lee  c I there seem to be no difference between this case and that in Carth but as  the money be to be take in full of all demand the court doubt at first they  seem to think the award have send adjournatur