458 MURDOCK'S CASE.—2 BLAND.

them, and that the said Gilbert Murdock might be compelled to
remove the part of the said fence, erected .since the service of the
said injunction.

award, when returned; and that each party shall be at liberty, notwith-
standing, to appeal; in order that the Court of Appeals may reverse, or
change his decree, in case his award shall be liable to such objection or ob-
jections, or contain such error or errors as might be deemed sufficient to set
aside an award made by any other person.

The parties having considered this proposition and refused to accede to it.
the case was again submitted.

HANSON. C., 15th November, 1799.—The complainants having verbally re-
fused to comply with the proposition made by the Chancellor on the 3th
instant, the Chancellor is under the necessity of deciding according to what
he conceives the rules of law. and the established principles of this Court.

If the settlement made by the persons who are stated to have been ap-
pointed by the parties to decide between them, could be considered as a
regular, final and complete award, it would not, in this Court, avail the
complainant. It is notorious, that this Court never compels the perform-
ance of an award, merely as such, unless made under an order on the sub-
mission in Court of the parties. But the said settlement cannot be con-
sidered as an award. For. supposing that a submission to the said persons
had been regularly made, it does not appear that the said settlement was
ever declared and delivered as an award. If the said settlement is not to
be considered as an award, in what other way can it be considered as effec-
tual ? Can it be received as evidence, that on the day of its date the balance
stated to be due to Edward Norwood, was actually due to him ? No! It is
expressly stated, that the settlement was made chiefly from the books of the
complainant: and all that can be inferred from it is, that the said persons
were satisfied, that there was a certain balance due on a certain day from
the defendant to the complainant. The second and third exceptions not
having been insisted on by the defendant; and his counsel having in open
Court expressly declared, that they would not insist upon the same.

It is hereby adjudged, that the first exception of the defendant be, and it
ie hereby admitted to be good; and that the second and third exceptions of
the said defendant be, and they are hereby disallowed. It is further Ordered,
that the auditor re-state the account No. 1, on such evidence as has been or
shall be produced, not considering the settlement aforesaid as evidence. But
it appears to the Chancellor, that the full sum of £400 for the difference in
value of the land, &c. ought to be charged to the defendant, the persons
appointed to value having by plain, unequivocal language, awarded it to be
paid by him for the said difference. He is therefore to be charged with it.

On the 31st of January, 1800. the auditor, in obedience to this order, re-
ported, that he had re-stated an account No. 6, between the complainant and
defendant, on which there appeared due to the defendant £358 17s. 11d.
including interest. That from exhibits filed by the defendant, he had stated
another account, No. 7, on which there was due to the defendant <£63 6s. 4d.,
including interest. But that the evidence from which it had been stated,
were receipts for money stated to have been paid by the defendant on ac-
count of E. & S. Norwood, without any additional legal proof of the facts,
as to the actual payments of the defendant, or the hand-writing of the per-