516 PHILLIPS v. SHIPLEY.

PHILLIPS v. SHIPLEY.

There is no legislative enactment relative to the reference of suits depending in
Chancery to arbitration. Such a reference cannot be withdrawn or revoked with-
out 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 mal-
practice. &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 arbit-
rament of Daniel Kreber, Joseph Jameson, and Henderson P. Low,
or any two of them. On the 31st of May following the arbitrators,
Jameson 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 ambi-
guous upon its face; and that it was obtained by fraud and mal-
practice in the arbitrators who made it. After which the parties
filed sundry affidavits in relation to these exceptions; and on the
8th of July 1828, under the act of 1824, ch. 196, the proceedings
were removed to and filed in this court.

18th November, 1828.—BLAND, Chancellor.—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 ;(a) and whether the English statute relative
to the determining of differences by arbitration ever was in force
here does not appear to have been clearly ascertained.(6) 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

(a) October 1778, ch. 21, s. 8 & 9; 1785, ch. 80, s. 11.—(6) Kilty Rep. 9 & 10,

Will. 3, c. 15; West v. Stigar, 1 H. & McH. 247, & 4 H. & McH. 490.