
    Grimes vs. Grimes.
    Arbitration
    
      May 3.
    
      Two suits were referred to arbitrators ; by a subsequent order, in terms embracing only one. of file suits, one of the arbitrators was superseded —the substitute and i his colleague returned an a War'd on -both suits : held that the award'-as invalid, as but one suit was refer-, red to these arbitrators.
    An agreement o’freferenee(un-der the statute) must state the dispute, or suit, referred and the power ofthe arbitrators is re-striéted to the matters induct-, ed in the statement.
    Extraneous evidence is not ad mited to show what the parties agreed to refer 3' it should appear by the record.
    [Messrs. Wicldiffeánd Wooley for Appellant: No appearance for Appellee.]
    From the Circuit Court for Fayette County.
   ■Judge Underwood

delivered the Opinion of the Court.

BenjamiN Grimes instituted a suit in chancery, against Charles Grimes, in the Fayette circuit court; and Charles Grimes, inthesame court, brought an action, by petition and summons, against Benjamin. These suits were pending at the same time. In April, 1826, the court made an order, with the consent of the parties, referring “all matters in difference between them in these suits,” to the arbitrament of W. Bullock and J. Shelby and their umpire': “whose award, when returned, shall be made the judgment of the court.” This order followed immediately after stating the style of both suits.

In the following June, this order was made;

Charles Grimes, plaintiff, ■against Benjamin Grimes, defendant.”
On Petition.”
“ By consent of the parties, George Robinson is appointed an arbitrator herein, in room of James Shelby.”

Bullopk and Robinson having made an award which embraced both suits, the court rendered judgment thereon ; to reverse which, Charles Grimes prosecutes an ap". peal. The judgment must be reversed, and the award set aside. Robinson had no power, under the submission, to act upon the suit in chancery. The plain and obvious meaning of the order appointing him, conferred authority to decide upon the matters involved in the petition, and did not embrace those of the suit in chancery.

The arbritration attempted, was under the provisions of the statute, (1 Dig. 90.) A correct construction-of that act requires, that the order of reference, should state the dispute referred to the arbitrators, or the suit, so that they may know precisely the duties which they are required to perforin. Tbe order substituting Robinson, in the room oi Shelby, does it only so far as relates to the petition. We cannot go into the acts of the parties before the arbitrators, for the purpose of aiding a defective submission under the statute. The record should shew what the parties meant, and what authority was conferred.

Judgment reversed, with costs, and cause remanded, with directions to quash the award.  