
    Burkholder against M'Ferran and wife to the use of Stahl.
    
      Friday, October 3,
    In an award the sum for which judgment is to be entered must be expressJy mentioned, or reference made tosome- ’ thing extrinsic by which it may be ascer~ • tained.
    In Error.
    ERROR to the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County.
    
      M’Ferran and wife, for the use of Joseph Stahl,
    brought ’ • debt on a single bill not exceeding 150 dollars, against Burk-holder., and on the 16th January, 1815, filed a statement that their “ demand was founded on a single bill, dated 7th No- “ vember, 1811, for the payment of 142 dollars, 72 cents, on “the 11th February, 1819, with interest from the date.” Annexed to this was a calculation of a balance due (after crediting the defendant with money paid) of 118 dollars, 90 cents. Interest was calculated to the 16th January, 1815. On the bill were indorsed two payments : one without a date. The defendant pleaded payment, with leave. To which there was a replication and issue. The case was afterwards arbitrated by the plaintiff, and the arbitrators awarded that they “ found for the plaintiff the balance due on a single bill, which was given the 7th day of November, 1811, with interest from the date, for the use of Joseph Stahl, assigned to the said Stahl, by M'-Ferran and wife.
    
      Chambers, for the plaintiff in error,
    contended that, the award is uncertain. It is for no fixed sum. It is for the balance due on a single bill, without saying what that balance was, or giving reference to any thing which would render it certain. The only reference is to the date of the single bill.
    M'Cullough, contra,
    answered that the award sufficiently shews the intent of the arbitrators. The statement demands a certain balance, and the award is for the balance.
    
      Reply.
    
    The award does not refer to the statement filed by the plaintiff.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Tilghman C. J.

This cause was submitted to arbitration, and the arbitrators made the following award. “We find “ for the plaintiff the balance due on a single bill, which was “given the 7th day of November, 1811, with interest from “ the date, for the use of Joseph Stahl, assigned to the said “ Stahl, by M'Ferran and wife.” It is objected, that this award is void, for uncertainty. Awards should be construed liberally, and it is the wish of the Court to support them against exceptions taken to their form. But it is essential that they should be certain. The sum for which judgment is to be entered, must be either expressly mentioned, or reference made to something extrinsic, by which that sum may be ascertained. In this award no certain sum is mentioned, nor is there any reference which leads to certainty. It was not intended to find for the plaintiff, .for the -whole amount of the single bill on which the suit was brought, but only for a balance due on it. But what that balance was, does not appear. The amount of the balance was the matter in dispute (if there was really any dispute) between the parties. There are two payments indorsed on the bill; but one of them has no date, so that the balance could not be ascertained by the indorsements, even if they had been referred to in the award. But they are not referred to; so that there is nothing certain. With all the inclination which the Court feel to supply the defects of this award, they find it impossible. It is our opinion, therefore, that the judg¿ ment should be reversed.

Judgment reversed.  