
    Rea against Gibbons.
    Tuesday, September 11.
    If by an agreement in writing to refer under the Act of 1705, at bp stipulated Ihattht* award shall be under the hands and seals of the arbitrators, an award under their hands without their seals, is bad.
    In Error.
    . ERROR to the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny county.
    The,parties to this suit, Thomas Reaand Edward, Gibbons, on the 10th October, 1820, entered into a written agreement under their hands and seals, to refer all their accounts, contracts, bargains, and differences whatsoever, to J. S. J. ,W. J, C., or a majority, of them, with power to adjourn from day to day, and after taking into, consideration all the said accounts, contracts, and differences whatsoever, as also the case then subsisting between the parties so far as the same should be laid .before them, the said-referees or a majority of them, shall make out an award in writing, under their hands and seals, and express therein such settlements, conditions, and balances due between the said parties, as to them- or a majority of them shall seem just and correct; by which award so to be made, the said parties agree to abide punctually, faithfully, and strictly under the penalty of 1000 dollars. It was further agreed that the said referees, or a majority of them should have power to make such division of all the property on the farm, between the said Edward and Thomas, as they ora majority of them should deem just, assigning to each party his own share in their said award : and to this the said parties bound themselves under the penalty aforesaid. They further agreed by a writing annexed thereto, under their hands and seals, that an amicable action should be entered wherein Thomas Rea, was plaintiff, against Edward Gibbóns, defendant, and the above agreement should be entered, considered, and proceeded upon as a rule of Court. On the 12th October, the action was entered in the Court of Common Pleas, and on the 12th November, 1820, an award was made, in which afoer examining the accounts, two of the arbitrators found for the defendant the sum of sixty dollars with costs, and the said Gibbons was to have the premises in three days from that date, arid to return to Rea all the hogs on the premises, and the same number of fowls received, and all the stock with its increase, and to return to Rea his team and farming utensils in as good order as received: the said Gibbons to take the horse bought of Rea, the corn and fodder stocked at the cabbin, all the oats, and straw, together with his own household furniture and cows, brought on the plade with him. This award was under the hands of the arbitrators, but not sealed. Exceptions were filed in the Court below on behalf of the plaintiff, but the Court ordered judgment to be entered on the award, and the defendant within a year issued a"fieri facias against Thomas Rea, to compel the payment of the sixty dollars. A motion was made by the plaintiff iñ the Court below, to set aside this execution ; but the motion was overruled by the Court, after hearing affidavits on both sides on the question whether the defendant had performed his part of the award.
    Hopkins, for the plaintiff in error,
    now assigned as errors,
    i: That the Court below should have awarded an issue to try whether the defendant had performed his part of the award.
    
      2. That the defendant could not have execution1 against the plaintiff without a previous scire facias.
    
    3. That the award was void for want of seals, which the agreement expressly stipulated. He cited. Blackburn v. Mar~ kle, 6 Binn. 174.
    
      Kingston and Biddle, contra,
    contended, thatthe judgment on this award was justified by the Act of 21st March, 1806, and that the objections to the want of seals, ought not to be regarded, because the plaintiff had himself taken advantage of the award so far as it was in his favour. As to the execution it was not before this Court.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Tilghman. C. J.

In this case, the parties entered into an agreement of reference of a very special nature. The referees were authorised, not only to decide all accounts, contracts, bargains and differences subsisting between the parties, but also to make a division of a certain personal property, and the award was to be made by the three referees ora majority of them, under, their hands and seals. Two of the referees made an award in writing, under1 their hands, but not under their seals ; and on this award judgment was entered, the agreement of reference having been made a rule of Court. It is now said, in support of the judgment, that the seals of the referees were immaterial, but no authority has been shewn in support of this position. A case has been cited from Barnes’s Notes, ('Gatliffe v. Dunn,) in which it was decided, that an award not indented was - good, though in the submission to arbitration, it was provided, that it should be indented. The Court are.said to have made very light of the objection, declaring, that indenting, was of no more consequence than writing upon gilt paper. Without questioning the authority of that case, it may be observed, that sealing is considered in law as a matter of some importance, and, if the parties who submit to an arbitration, think proper to agree, that the award- shall be under seal, I know not why the Court should contradict them, or render their agreement a nullity by declaring that a seal was a matter of no importance. That an award must be under seal, when .the submission requires it, was decided by the Supreme Court of New York in Stanton v. Henry, 11 Johns. 133, and the law is so laid down in Kyd on Awards, 262; and was so decided in the case of Sallows v. Girling, reported in Cro. Jac. 27, and Yelv. 203, and referred to in 3 Vin. Ab. 116. From a view of the agreement in this case, I consider the rulé of reference as entered under the old Act of 1705, and therefore not subject to the provisions of the late arbitration Acts. Many objections to the award have been urged by the' counsel for the plaintiff in error, but the Court confines, itself to one, which it considers fatal, viz. the want of seals. It is our opinion that the J udgment should be reversed.

Judgment reversed.  