486 PHILLIPS v. SHIPLEY.—1 BLAND.

516 * PHILLIPS v. SHIPLET.

ARBITRATION.

There is no legislative enactment relative to the reference of suits depending
in Chancery to arbitration. Such a reference cannot be withdrawn or
revoked without the sanction of the Court. There must be a decree
upon an award which is fair and unambiguous upon its face; and as to
which there is no proof of malpractice, &c.

This bill was filed on the 25th of January, 1828, in Baltimore
County Court, by Isaac Phillips, Jun'r, and William Shipley, Jun'r,
against Richard A. Shipley, to have an account of a joint concern,
in which they had been engaged, in building certain houses in the
City of Baltimore; and for relief, &c. On the same day, and with-
out any answer having been put in by the defendant, it was, by
consent, ordered, that the matter in dispute be referred to the
arbitrament of Daniel Kreber, Joseph Jameson, and Heuderson
P. Low, or any two of them. On the 31st of May following the
arbitrators, Jamison and Low, made and returned an award.

The plaintiffs filed a caveat or exceptions against the passing of
any decree upon this award, in which they assign various reasons;
chiefly, that they had revoked the authority of the arbitrators
before the award was made; that it was uncertain and ambiguous
upon its face; and that it was obtained by fraud and malpractice
in the arbitrators who made it. After which the parties filed sun-
dry affidavits in relation to these exceptions; and on the 8th July,
1828, under the Act of 1824, ch. 196, the proceedings were removed
to and filed in this Court.

BLAND, C., 18th November, 1828.—This case standing ready
for hearing, and the solicitors of the parties having been fully
heard, the proceedings were read and considered.

It is quite obvious, that the Acts of Assembly which allow cases
to be referred to arbitrators relate only to actions depending in a
Court of common law; October, 1778, ch. 21, s. 8 and 9; 1785, eh.
80, s. 11; and whether the English statute relative to the deter-
mining the differences by arbitration ever was in force here does
not appear to have been clearly ascertained. Kilty Rep, 9 and 10;
Will. 3, c. 15; West v. Stigar, 1 H. & McH. 247, and 4 H. & McH.
490. But even if that statute were to be taken as a part of our
law, it is yet doubtful whether it could be executed in cases to

which it was * intended to apply, according to the equitable
517 jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery or not. 2 Mad. Chan.
712. Apart however from that doubt, it is clear, that awards
made on references in cases depending are not awards to which