Ex parte McKinney and Thompson against Newcomb

Ex parte McKinney and Thompson against Newcomb. On a motion to set aside an award which was agreed to be made a rule of court; the merits of the award are not inquirable into. It wilt not be set aside in a court of law, unless the arUIUaLUis ililVU acted dishon^J[IyOT cor’ The parties had submitted to arbitration, and agreed that the submission should be made a rule of court. The award being for McKinney and Thompson, it was, early m this term on motion, made a rule of court, and performance demanded ; and now two motions were made ; one for an attachment against Newcomb for not performing the award, and another in hehalf of Newcomb to set aside the award, on the ground that the arbitrators had rejected a material witness, offered by Newcomb. Lockwood for Newcomb, cited 17 John. 410, 11 ; Kyd on Aw. 317 ; 1 Str. 695 ; 1 Burr. 278; 1 R. L. 125, 6. Anderson, for McKinney and Thompson. He also objected, that the submission could not be made a rule of court after the award, on the authority of Spettigue v. Carpenter, (3 P. Wms. 361;) but the court did not hesitate to disallow this objection, as the contrary is clearly settled; Alardes v. Campbell, 1 Barnard Rep. K. B. 152 ; Pownall v King, 6 Ves. 10. Caldw. on Arb. Am. ed. 20 ; and it was so he d ately, by this Court, in Ex parte Vasques, (ante, 29.) [MAJORITY — Curia.] Curia. Here is no pretence of dishonesty or corruption in the arbitrators. We do not examine the merits on an application to set aside the award. (2 Archb. Pr. 289. 2 Burr. 701. 1 Str. 301. 1 Saund. 327, d.) A mere raistake of the law is not a ground for our interference ; and js aq which is pretended. The case cited from the 17 Johnson was in a court of equity. The motion to set aside the award must be denied; and the attachment must go. Rule accordingly.