barnard against king mich bane sup pasch rot demurrer to a replication in debt  upon a obligation to stand to a award Barnard bring a action of debt upon a  obligation of l to stand to a award the defendant plead no one arbitration the  plaintiff reply that the umpire make the award and set it forth and assign a  breach to this replication style report er p the defendant demurrer and take  exception that the plaintiff set forth that the arbitrator can not agree and  after they have deny to make the award the same day the umpire make the award  latch of council with the defendant hold this award set forth in the  replication to be nought because the submission be that if the arbitrator  shall not make the award to morrow then the umpire shall make the uillpirage  and here the umpirage be make upon the same day that be give to the arbitrator  to make the award and they have the whole day by the submission to make it in  and although they can agree to make it one part of the day they may agree  afterward the same daV to make it and this disagreement be not a give up of  their authority and wood a d clement case car be not against this that it be  not say that the arbitrament be deliver that the matter award be not within  the submission namely the payment of the rend express hale on the other side  argue that the umpire may make the award upon that day that be set forth and  the condition here be all one as if it have be say if the arbitrator make the  award to morrow or if the umpire make the award to morrow pasch James Barry  and fall case and the word here after denegassent et deservissent be a direct  averment that the arbitrator can not agree to make the award and arbitrator  may make a award after they have choose a umpire and although the umpire have  power to make the unipirage a day after they make it yet if it be make before  it be a good unipirage if the law pernait it and the unipirage here be well  deliver for the submission be not that it shall be deliver to both party but  general that it shall be deliver and therefore it be well if it be deliver to  one it be ready to be deliver to the other and for the payment of the rend  although it be a future act yet be matter of satisfaction it be good although  it be not express in the submission roll chief justice say for the last matter  the word super proemissis bring the payment of the rend within the submission  otherwise the award of the payment thereof will not be good by way of  satisfaction but here the controversy be for the land for which the style  report rend be to be pay and the matter do not appear to be out of the  submission and it be not necessary to aver that the land be in Colltroversie  that for the delivery of the award it be well enough as it be for it be not  specify to who the umpire shall deliver the umpirage although it be express to  who the arbitrator be to deliver their award if they have make it but the main  question here be if the umpire can make the umpirage the day it be make and  for that I hold he can not because the authority give by the submission to the  arbitrator be not determine when the umpirage be make and by the submission  the arbitrator have no authority to make a umpire for then it have be good and  it appear not that the umpire have concurrent authority with the arbitrator  for it be not say if the arbitrator make no arbitrament then the umpire shall  make it but here be a condition for the arbitrator to have all the day  precedent to make the arbitration in and no concur power be give to the umpire  that day for the arbitrator have all of it to agree in and till it be end the  umpire have no power at all otherwise the submission will be repugnant in it  self the rest of the judge concur in all and so rule that the plaintiff nil to  take in hand per billam nisi