PHILLIPS v. SHIPLEY. 517

intended to apply, according to the equitable jurisdiction of the
Court of Chancery or not.(c) * Apart however from that doubt, it
is clear, that awards made on references in cases depending are not
awards to which that statute relates.(d) Whence it is evident,
that an award made on a reference in a suit in equity has
not been regulated by any legislative enactment whatever; yet
it has at all times been held by the courts of common law and
equity in England, to be within the regular scope of their powers
to pass an order, with the consent of the parties to any suit then
depending, referring the matter in controversy to arbitration; and to
enforce the award, (e)

The reference of cases depending in this court to arbitration, and
the passing of decrees upon awards was common before the revo-
lution,^) and has continued to be the practice ever since. Whether
there has been any well established and regular course of proceed-
ing, in relation to such references, does not distinctly appear; but, it
seems, that if the award be in any respect exceptionable, it may,
on motion, and on the fact being sufficiently shewn, be set aside.(g)
It is presumed, that this court would set aside an award returned
to it, upon any ground allowed to be taken against an award in a
court of common law; or upon any other ground, on which a bill
might be filed between the same parties to have an award vacated, (h)
But if no objection be made against an award, then, according to a
long standing rule and practice, either party jpay apply for and
have a decree passed in conformity to its terms, (i)

Upon the general principles by which this court is governed,
and by analogy to the express provisions of the acts of Assembly
regulating similar references in actions at common law, a party
cannot be permitted to withdraw from or to revoke a reference
made by an order of this court, with the consent of parties, without
the sanction and order of this court itself allowing it to be done.( j)

(c) 2 Mad. Chan. 712.—(d) Lucas v. Wilson, 2 Burr. 701; Lansdale v. Littledale.
2 Ves. jun. 453.—(e) Lucas v. Wilson, 2 Burr. 701; Dick v. Milligan, 2 Ves. jun. 24,
2 Fow. Exeh. Pra. 350.—(/) Waring v. Mullan, 1771; Chan. Pro. lib. W. K. No. 1,
fol. 6,28,48, &c.—(f) Nevan v. Pinkney, 1787, Chan. Pro. Ub. 8. H. H. letter B. ft. 6.
(A) Goldsmith v. Tilly, 1 H. & J. 301; Harris v. Doreey, I H. & J. 416; Cromwell
v. Owings, 6 H. & J. 10; Heuitt v. The State, 6 H. & J. 95.—(t) Brawner v. Gowton,
17th March 1789, Chan. Pro. lib. S. H. H. let B. fol. 507; Hardy v. Howard, MS.
16th July, 1794.—(J) Crawshay v. Collins, 1 Swan. 41; Hareourt v Ramsbottom!
1 Jac. & Walk. 491.

*