518 PHILLIPS v. SHIPLEY.

In this case there has been no such regular and solemn revocation.
The award returned appearing to be sufficiently fair and unambi-
guous upon its face to afford a proper foundation for a decree ;(k)
and the affidavits read in evidence being entirely too loose and
contradictory to sustain the allegation of malpractice in the arbitra
tors; the caveat must therefore be overruled and the award con-
firmed.

Whereupon it is decreed, conformably to the said award, that
the property in the proceedings mentioned situate in Pratt-street
in the city of Baltimore be held as the property of William Ship-
ley jun'r. and Isaac Phillips jun'r. and their legal representatives
and assigns, as tenants in common; and it is further ordered, that
the property in the bill mentioned situate in Saratoga-street in the
city of Baltimore be held by the said William Shipley jun'r, Isaac
Phillips jun'r. and Richard A. Shipley, their legal representatives
and assigns, as tenants in common; and it is further ordered, that
the property on Franklin-street in the bill mentioned be held as
the sole and exclusive property of the said Richard A. Shipley, his
legal representatives and assigns. And it is further ordered, that
the said plaintiffs William Shipley jun'r. and Isaac Phillips jun'r.
pay unto the said defendant Richard A. Shipley the sum of three
hundred and fifty-five dollars and eighty-nine cents, with legal
interest thereon from the 31st day of May last until paid. And it
is further ordered, that each party pay his own costs to be taxed
by the register; but the costs of the award, as estimated by the
arbitrators and indorsed on the back of the award, are hereby
rejected as forming no part thereof.

(k) Tillard v. Fisher, 3 H. & McH. 118.