260 CONTEB P. DAWSOJSf.—2 BLAND.

any * controversy to arbitration will oust the proper Courts
276 of justice of their jurisdiction in the case. Tattersall v.
Groote, 2 Bos. & Put. 132; Allegre v. Insurance Company, 6 H. & J.
413; Platt on Covenants, 146.

A covenant never to sue for an existing demand, like a release
of all suits, to avoid circuity of action, is construed to be an entire
release of the demand itself; since the being divested of all power
to enforce a right in a Court of justice, where alone rights can be
enforced, is, in effect, the being stripped of all right whatever.
Co. Litt. 165. An agreement to forbear to sue, under a certain
penalty, until an arbitration has been had may give the party in-
jured a right to recover the penalty. But as a Court of equity can-
not decree a specific performance of a contract for the reference of
a dispute to arbitration, the parties must be allowed to bring their
case before the proper tribunals of the country; and this will ap-
pear to be the more necessary when the imbecile and improvident
nature of the domestic forum is considered. Street v. Rigby, 6
Ves, 818.

Arbitrators, according to the English law, have no power to en-
force the attendance of witnesses, or to administer an oath to those
who do attend; they can only decide upon the admissions of the
parties, or on such testimony as may be voluntarily offered to
them. Street v. Rigby, 6 Ves. 821. But under our Act of Assem-
bly, 1778, ch. 21, s. 8, "and the approved custom of the Court,"
as it is called, the Courts of law in their rule, referring a case
then depending, have given power to the referees to examine evi-
dences on oath by the consent of both parties. 2 Harr. Entries,
156, 229. And here, as in England, this Court has always been
in the habit of entering decrees upon and enforcing awards by
virtue of its own orders in cases then depending. Ormond v. Kyn-
nersley, 1 Cond. Chan. Rep. 325; Haygett v. Walsh, 2 Cond. Chan.
Rep. 68; Phillips v. Shipley, 1 Bland, 516. (h) There are, how-

(h) GARDNER v. DICK.—This bill was filed on the 25th day of October, 1750,
by Jeremiah Gardner and Daniel Legg, assignees of Daniel Dodson, who
was assignee of John Peele, a bankrupt, now deceased, against James Dick.
James Mowat, and James Nicholson, executors of William Peele, deceased,
and William Cuinmings and Richard Snowden. The bill alleges, that
Samuel Peeie and William Peele were largely indebted to John Peele, and
being so indebted, William Peele conveyed the greater part of his personal
estate, consisting chiefly of negroes, to the defendants, Cummings and
Snowden, with intent to defraud his creditors. Whereupon it was prayed,
that the defendants, executors of William Peele, might be made to account
for the assets which had come to their hands; that the conveyance to Cum-
mings and Snowden might be set aside; that they also might be compelled
to account, and that the assets might be applied to the satisfaction of the
debt due to the plaintiffs.

The executors put in a joint and separate answer, in which they made
some statements as to the assets which had come to their hands: denied