
    Hill against Crawford.
    . A scire fa-referred to umíe™thTÁct March,,
    In Error.
    THE plaintiff in error, Alexander Hill, brought an acllón on the case, in the Common Pleas of Butler against Josiah Crawford, the defendant in error, which referred to arbitration. The arbitrators filed a report in vour of the defendant, and awarded the sum of four hundred and nine dollars, sixty-seven cents to be due to-him. Judgment having been entered on the award, Crawford issued a scirefacias upon it against Hill, in which a rule of arbitration was entered by the plaintiff in the scire facias, under the Act of 20th March, 1810, in pursuance of which, arbitrators were appointed, who awarded in favour of the plaintiff four hundred and thirty-one dollars, twenty-two cents.
    The record being removed by writ of error to this Court,
    
      Forward, for the plaintiff in error, contended, that the case was not the subject of an arbitration, under the Act by virtue of which the rule was entered. It has been decided by this Court, that a scirefacias against bail, to which the present case is very analogous, cannot be arbitrated under that law. So an action on an official bond, and an action of account render. A conclusive reason why the present suit was improper to' be brought before arbitrators is, that if the defendant had pleaded nul tiel record, which he had a right to do, the issue could not have been tried by them, but must have been decided by the Court.
    
      Foster, for the defendant in error.
    The cases excluded by the decisions of this Court from the operation of the arbitration system, are very different from this. In account render, auditors are to be appointed, which cannot be done by arbitrators. With regard to official bonds, although an opinion .was intimated by the Court, the point Was not decided. But in suits on such bonds, the Commonwealth is plaintiff, and many persons are concerned, whose interests might be injured by collusion. With respect to the plea of nul tiel record, there is no reason why it should not be decided by the arbitrators, since the Act of Assembly makes them judges of the law as well as of the fact. 1 o an action of debt upon a judgment, nul tiel record may be pleaded, and yet it will not be pretended that it-is not within the Act. The objection is equally applicable to both cases, and if it does not exclude one, why should it exclude the other ?
   By the Court.' —

The only question is, whether, on a scire facias on a judgment on the report of arbitrators, the suit may be carried before arbitrators without the consent of the- defendant, by virtue of the “ Act regulating arbitrations,” passed the 20th March, 1810. The words of the Act extend .to all civil suits or actions. A scire facias on a judgment is undoubtedly a civil suit; and the only plausible objection urged by the defendant is, that if issue had been joined on a plea of nul tiel record, it would not. have been proper to take the cause from the decision of the Court, and transfer it to arbitrators. The answer to this objection is, that this cause was arbitrated before any plea of nul tiel record had been put in, and whether it ever was put in before the arbitrators, we know not. It is not sufficient to say, that possibly some plea may be made before the arbitrators which it would be improper for them to decide on. A rule of that kind would abolish the arbitration system ; for there are few actions in which some matter of record may not be pleaded. In a scire facias, or action of debt on a judgment, the defendant frequently pleads payment, satisfaction, or a release. And when the cause is transferred to arbitrators before any plea is put in, it is impossible to say what will be the matter of dispute. There is nothing in this case, therefore, which would authorise the Court to except it from the operation of the Arbitration Act; and we are of opinion, that thejudgment should be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.  