
    Sharp vs. Dusenbury.
    
      P. W. YATES moved to set aside interlocutory judgment, because the sheriff before whom the inquisition was taken had admitted improper and rejected proper evidence.
    
      Emott on the other side read an affidavit that it had been agreed between the parties, that any evidence might be given before the sheriff which could be given on a trial or could have been pleaded. And he now contended, that such agreement ought to preclude either party from making objections to the conduct of the sheriff, provided no corrupt intention was to be imputed to him.
   Per Curiam.

When parties agree to submit a controversy to the decision of the sheriff, the inquest is to be considered as in nature of an arbitration, and therefore the Court will never set aside the inquisition merely because the sheriff admits improper or rejects proper evidence.

Motion denied.  