
    *Stone vs. Knight.
    
      Trin. 3 Car.
    
    THERE being divers matters of controversy between the father and Margaret, his daughter of the one part, and Knight of the other part; the father and daughter of the one part, and Knight of the other, submitted themselves to an arbitration of all quarrels. The girl being within age, the father bound himself to Knight, that he and she would perform the award on their part. The arbitrators awarded that Knight should pay so much to the girl, who would release all actions to him, and that the father and daughter should afterwards release all actions to Knight. Knight did not pay the money at the day; and the daughter brought debt on the obligation.
    
      Banks moved. 1. Whether the submission is void? For if so, the arbitration is void; and if the arbitration is void, then Knight is not bound: for an obligation to perform a void award is void. 8 E. 4. I. 8 E. 4. 22. 19 E. 4. 1. 10 Rep. 31.
    And the whole court, viz. Doderidge, J. Jones, J. and Whitlock, J. assented.
    2. The arbitration is void: for the submission of the infant is void. The father and daughter are here one party, and as one person in the submission. Where two persons submit themselves on one side; one alone cannot revoke it, ergo if it be void as to the infant, it is so as to the father also. Because the intention of the parties is, that all controversies, between the parties, should be terminated; which cannot be if the infant is not bound. An arbitration is to be expounded according to the intention, 10 rep. 57. But the submission of the infant is void; then the arbitration is of something not submitted to the arbitrators.
    
      Noy, e contra.
    The submission of the infant is good, for it is for his benefit. Otherwise an infant would be in pejore casu, than a person of full age, who may terminate his controversies by arbitration, and to avoid the charge of a suit; while he (the infant) would be compelled to endure the extreme rigor of the law. True it is, that if an infant binds himself to perform an award, the obligation is void, but the submission is good. 13 H. 4, 12. 10 H. 6. 14.
   Doderidge, J.

An infant of 18 years of age, may submit to an arbitration, but may not bind himself by a penalty. He may be administrator.

Jones, J. concurred,

but it would be otherwise if he was to shew that it is to his disadvantage. But here it appears to be to his advantage.

Whitlock, J.

The submission is not void, but voidable, by the infant, and his election to avoid it is reserved to him during his infancy. He who submits himself to an award takes upon himself to chuse his own judges, and *an infant cannot make an attorney in court, and although judgment be given for him, in such a case, it is erroneous. So that while he is under age, nothing can make the submission good. But if, when he arrives at full age, he does any act amounting to an agreement to the award, he is bound.

Jones, J. Perhaps, as my brother Whitlock has said, when the infant comes to be of full age, he may disagree to the award.

Doderidge, J. The reason why an infant cannot appear by attorney, is because he cannot make a warrant.

Jones, J. In this case the infant cannot have error. If an infant commits a mayhem, he cannot submit to an arbitration therefore.

3. The award here to the daughter alone is bad, viz. that Knight shall pay so much to her. The father and daughter are only one person in this declaration. It is distributory to all those of one party, against the other. Jones, 164. Noy 83. March 140, 142.  