
    Brown against Green and Noyes :
    in ERROR.
    Where an award is within the submission, a court of chancery will not set it aside, except for partiality and corruption in the arbitrators, mistakes on their own principles, or fraud and misbehaviour in the parties.
    Tins was a bill in chancery, brought by Brown against Green and Noyes, to set aside an award of arbitrators, and to stay proceedings at law on two promissory notes given to enforce performance of such award. Both the submission and the award were in writing, and were set forth at length in the plaintiff’s bill. The submission was as follows : “This agreement made and entered into by and between Samuel Green oí New-London and William Noyes, jun. of Lyme, on the one part, and Robert Brown of Waterford, on the other part, wit-nesseth,
    
    “ That whereas diverse controversies have arisen between the parties, in relation to Niantic bridge, and an award has been made between the said Green and the said Brown, and also an award between the said Noyes and the said Brown, and a suit commenced in favour of the said Noyes upon the last mentioned award, which suit was withdrawn, upon entering into a new submission, by the parties hereto, which last submission is claimed, by the said Noyes and Green, to have been revoked, by the said Brown.
    
    
      “ Now, therefore, for the purpose of putting an end to said controversies, the parties hereby agree to submit the same, and all costs in said suit, and the costs and damages upon said submission, and all other matters in dispute between the parties, of every name, nature and description relating to said bridge, between the said Brown and the said Green and Noyes, and each of them, to the award, arbitrament and final determination of Moses Warren, Charles J. McCurdy and Joseph Chadwick, Esqrs., arbitrators mutually agreed on between the parties.
    “ And the parties hereby agree, that the said arbitrators shall not be concluded by the aforesaid award, but may examine and settle all matters in dispute between the parties in relation to said bridge; that they shall appraise that part of said bridge claimed by said Green and Noyes, and shall examine and settle all accounts relative to the re-building and repairing of said bridge, and the rents and profits of the sftme, as well before as subsequent to the making of said award ; and in case a balance shall be found in favour of said Brown, the same shall be deducted from the value of the part of said bridge claimed by said Green and Noyes; and if the balance shall be in favour of said Green and Noyes, or either of them, the same shall be added to the value of said part of said bridge ; and said arbitrators shall also determine the matter of costs in said suit, and also the matter of costs and damages upon said submission, and also the costs of the arbitration ; and the part of said bridge claimed by said Green and Noyes, shall be conveyed to the said Brown, and the said Brown shall pay the said Green and Noyes therefor, according to the award of said arbitrators.
    “And for the purpose of more effectually carrying into execution this agreement, the said Brown shall make and execute a joint and several note, signed by himself and his brother Henry Brown, payable to said Green and Noyes, on demand, with interest, in the sum of 200 dollars, and also his the said Brown's note for 500 dollars, payable on demand with interest, and shall deposite said notes in the hands of Charles J. Mc-Curdy, one of the said arbitrators, on or before the 19th day of April inst. And the said Green and Noyes, on their part, shall execute to the said Brown their joint and several note, payable to the said Brown, on demand, with interest, in the sum of 700 dollars, and shall deposite the same with said Me Curdy, on or before ,the 23rd of April inst. And in case said arbitrators shall find a balance in favour of said Brown over and above said Green and Noyes’s part of said bridge, as claimed by them, they shall indorse said Green and Noyes’s note down to said balance, and shall thereupon deliver said note to said Brown; and the said Green and Noyes shall also convey to said Brown their said part of said bridge. On the other hand, in case said arbitrators shall find a balance in fa-vour of said Green and Noyes, or either of them, including the part of said bridge claimed by them, the said arbitrators shall indorse the said Brown’s notes down to said balance, and shall thereupon deliver the same to said Noyes and Green, together •with their note ; and in case said arbitrators shall find in favour of said Green and Noyes, or either of them, a greater sum than 200 dollars, no indorsement shall be made upon the said Robert and Henry’s note, but whatever indorsement may be made, shall be made upon the said'Robert’s own note.
    
      “ The said Green and Noyes shall, upon the making of said award, and notice to them, convey to the said Brown one quarter of said bridge, by a quit-claim deed from said Noyes, and a deed with warranty from said Green, under the incum-brance of the mortgage to said Noyes, and the said Brown shall thereupon immediately mortgage the said quarter back to the said Green and Noyes to secure the payment of his satá notes 'according to their tenor and effect. And said Green and Noyes shall not be required to give said conveyance to said Brown until he is ready immediately thereupon to give said mortgage ; nor shall they be required to give said conveyance, unless said Brown is ready and willing to perform this agreement respecting said mortgage within thirty days from the making of said award.
    “In case the said Robert shall neglect or refuse to fulfil this submission, the note signed by himself and said Henry shall be considered and holden as security for all damages the said Green and Noyes may sustain, by reason of the non-fulfilment or non-performance of this agreement.
    “ The arbitrators shall meet at the dwelling-house of Avery Smith in Waterford, on the 24th of April inst. at 10 o’clock A. M., or at any other time and place they may appoint, be-' tween the date hereof and the 29th of April inst., and may make and publish their award, in writing or by parol, at their pleasure, at any time between the date hereof and the 29th of April inst.
    “ In case the said Noyes and Green shall neglect and refuse to perform and fulfil this agreement on their part, they shall be liable on their note for all damages the said Robert may sustain, by means of the non-fulfilment or non-performance this agreement.
    “An award from the said arbitrators, or any two of them, shall be binding and conclusive upon the parties; and said arbitrators may examine and settle the account about the building and repairs of said bridge, and the rents and profits of the same, as though no award had heretofore been made relating to them.
    “ In witness whereof, we, the parties, have hereto set our hands, this 17th day of April, 1828.
    
      Robert Brown,
    
    
      William Noyes, jun.
    
    
      Samuel Green”
    
    The arbitrators met within the time and at the place mentioned in the submission, and having heard the parties, made and published the following award: “We, the subscribers, having been appointed arbitrators, to determine certain controversies between Samuel Green and William Noyes, jun., and each of them, on the one part, and Robert Brown, on the other part, relative to Niantic bridge, and divers matters connected therewith, as may more particularly appear by their submission, dated the 17th of April, 1828 ; and having taken upon us the burden of said arbitration, and having met and heard the parties and their counsel, and examined their exhibits, at the time and place mentioned in said submission, and having adjourned to meet at the office of Charles J. McCurdy in Lyme, this 28th day of April 1828, do now, on the subject matter of said submission, find,
    “ 1. That on the account relating to the rebuilding and repairing of said bridge, and the rents and profits of the same, as well before as subsequent to the making of certain awards, as mentioned in said submission, and which we have examined and settled, as if no such awards had heretofore been made, there is a balance of 102 dollars, 69 cents, due from the said Brown to the said Green and Noyes, and either of them.
    “ 2. We appraise that part of said bridge claimed by said Green and Noyes, being the one fourth part, and -which part we find they own, at the sum of 325 dollars ; which last sum, added to the balance of account, as above found, amounts to the sum of427 dollars, 69 cents. And we thereupon order and award, that the said Brown pay to them, the said Green and Noyes, the last aforesaid sum of 427 dollars, 69 cents.
    
      “3. We decide, adjudge and award, that the said Brown pay to the said Noyes, his the said Noyes’s costs in the suit mentioned in the said submission, being the sum of 16 dollars ; likewise his costs and damages on a former submission mentioned jn saj¿¡ submission, being the sum of 8 dollars ; as also his costs in this arbitration, being (exclusive of our fees and expenses) the to of 41 dollars, 39 cents ; amounting in the whole to the sum of 65 dollars, 39 cents.
    “ 4. The parties having deposited with the said Me Curdy, one of the arbitrators, their notes, as agreed in said submission, and within the time therein required, and we having found a balance in favour of said Green and Noyes, which, including the part of the bridge claimed by them, amounts to the sum of 427 dollars, 39 cents ; we, therefore, in pursuance of said submission, leave the.joint note of Robert Brown and Henry Brown, mentioned in said submission, payable in lull, and indorse the said note of the said Robert Brown down to the sum of 227 dollars, 39 cents, that being the excess of said sum of 427 dollars, 69 cents, over the said joint note, at this time.
    “ Further, in pursuance of said submission, we direct, order and award, that the said Green and Noyes shall, upon the making of this award, and notice to them, convey to the said Robert Brown one quarter of said bridge, by á quit-claim deed from said Noyes, and a deed with warranty from said Green, under the incumbrance of the mortgage to said Noyes; and the said Brown shall thereupon immediately mortgage the said quarter back to the said Noyes and Green to secure the payment of his notes according to their tenor and effect. And the said Green and Noyes shall not be required to give said conveyances to said Brown until the said Brown is ready immediately thereupon to give said mortgage ; nor shall they be required to give said conveyances, unless said Brown is ready and willing to perform the agreement respecting said mortgage, as contained in said submission, within thirty days from the making of this award.
    
      “ Made and published, this 28th day of April, 1828.
    
      Moses Warren, 4 Joseph Chadwick, \ Arbitrators,” Charles J, Me Curdy, ⅛
    The plaintiff "averred in his bill, as grounds of relief, that there never was, in point of fact, nor was it claimed before the arbitrators that there had ever been, any common interest between Green and Noyes, in any claim against the plaintiff; that there were no other matters in controversy before the arbitrators than the ownership of one fourth part of the bridge, as claimed by Green, and the rents, profits and expenses thereof; that Noyes never had, or claimed before the arbitrators to have, any interest in the bridge, except as mortgagee under a mortgage deed of one fourth part from Green to him ; that in truth, Green had no interest whatever in the bridge, and that the only evidence of any title, which he exhibited before the arbitrators, was a deed to him from one Downer of a certain part of the bridge, but there was no proof, nor is the fact so, that jDowner himself ever had any title to any part of the bridge ; that the plaintiff claimed title to the whole of the bridge, not under Downer, but adversely to him; nevertheless, the arbitrators found the title to one fourth part in Green, on no other evidence than Doumer's deed ; that Niantic bridge is real estate, consisting of land on each side of Niantic river connected by a bridge ;_that on the submission, for the revocation of which 8 dollars damages were awarded' to Noyes, one of the arbitrators refused to act; that Green and Noyes have commenced suits by attachment, against the plaintiff, on the arbitration notes, which are pending in court, &c.
    To this bill there was a general demurrer; and the superior court sustained the demurrer, and dismissed the bill with costs.
    On motion of the plaintiff, the cause was then removed to this Court, for revision in error.
    
      Isham, for the plaintiff,
    after premising, that where the demurrer is genera], and there is any fact to which the defendant ought to answer, the demurrer must be overruled, (2 Swift's Dig. 216. Coop. Plead. 112) contended, 1. That if the arbitrators are mistaken in a plain point of law, or of law and fact combined, it is a good ground for setting aside an award. Ridout v. Pain, 3 Atk. 494. Kyd 350. Metcalf v. Ives, 1 Atk. 64; Corneforth v. Geer, 2 Vern. 705. In this case, the arbitrators decided against a plain point of law, First, in admitting Downer's deed at all. Secondly, they decided' without and against evidence, by considering Downer’s deed,' and that alone, sufficient evidenoe of title. Thirdly, they committed a similar mistake in awarding damages to Noyes, on the ground of a revocation, when it is expressly averred, as a reason why the submission was not followed, that one of the arbitrators refused to act. Fourthly, they clearly mistook the law, in awarding upon the title to real estate. Here was an excessive assumption of power. 1 Swift’s Dig. 466. They also committed a plain mistake of law, in finding the title in Green and Noyes jointly, whereas Noyes had no title except as mortgagee.
    2. That if Green and Noyes cannot sustain their actions at law on the notes, on account of any legal defects in the award, a court of chancery will grant an injunction to stay proceedings in the suits. Kyd 329. (ed. 1808.)
    
      Law and Waite, contra,
    were stopped by the Court.
   Bissell, J.

It is apparent from an examination of the submission and the award, that the arbitrators did not mistake or exceed their powers. Every thing awarded on by them, is clearly within the terms of the submission. No corruption is imputed to them ; nor is it alleged, that the award was procured, by the fraud or misbehaviour of the adverse party. The gravamen of the plaintiff’s complaint, is, that the arbitrators found the facts, which form the basis of their award, upon insufficient testimony. But it is, surely, too late to contend, that an award is to be set aside, because the arbitrators have formed a false estimate of the weight of evidence, or have drawn incorrect conclusions from the facts before them. If this were so, the controversy, in every case, might be opened, and the merits of the award re-examined. This would be a departure from well settled principles, and directly opposed to the uniform course of decisions on the subject. The only grounds on which a court of chancery can interfere and set aside an award, are partiality and corruption in the arbitrators, mistakes on their own principles, or fraud and misbehaviour in the parties. Morgan v. Mather, 2 Ves. jun. 15. Tittenson v. Peat, 3 Atk. 529. Allen v. Ranney, 1 Conn. Rep. 569. Perkins & ux. v. Wing & al. 10 Johns. Rep. 143. It cannot be necessary to multiply authorities on a point so long and so well settled. I am of opinion, that there is nothing erroneous in the judgment of the superior court.

The other Judges were of the same opinion.

Judgment affirmed.  