
    Van Antwerp against Stewart.
    in an action of tration boo<uhc td^no^'lwmV and the piamtiff rcpuCU lllab luC defendant revoked the submission, itc. but did not state that the revoca- ^ was 1161,1
    THIS was an action of debt on an arbitration bond. Plea, no award. Replication, that the arbitrators took upon themselves the burden of the award, and met together, and were willing to award, but the defendant delivered a countermand or revocation of the submission, in writing, under his hand, dated the 16th September, 1807'. To . . ,, this replication there was a general demurrer and joinder,
    The objections were, that the replication did not state that the revocation of the submission was under seal; nor was it stated or averred that the arbitrators did not make an award. The demurrer was submitted to the court without argument.
   Per Curiam.

The replication is bad in not stating that the revocation of the bond of submission was under seal. A parol revocation would have been a nullity. There are no terms of art used in the replication, which import that the revocation was by deed, and the court cannot intend it. (l Saund. 291. Cabell v. Vaughan, note 1. and the authorities there cited.) The replication is also defective in not averring a breach of the bond, and that no award was made by reason of a revocation, or that an award was made, and that the defendant refused to abide by it.

Leave is, however, given to the plaintiff to amend according to his prayer, upon payment of the costs of the demurrer, and of the proceedings subsequent.  