
    Netleton, Administrator of Samuel Netleton, v. Buckingham.
    A defendant cannot take advantage of the parts of an award, which respects others and not himself. If it be good, as it respects him, he must perform it.
    EeROR to reverse a judgment of the County Court, in an action brought by said administrator against said Buckingham, upon a submission and an award, between tbe plaintiff and defendant and the other heirs of said Samuel Netleton — demanding of the defendant £19 7s. 9d. the sum awarded for him to pay; alleging that the other heirs had performed tlieir respective parts of the award. The defendant prayed oyer of the submission and award, and set them out upon the record and then demurred to the declaration.
    The exceptions taken under the demurrer, were to ‘parts of the award which did not respect the defendant, but tbe other heirs who had performed it. Judgment of the County Court was —■ That the declaration was insufficient, etc.
    Error assigned — That said declaration ought to have been sufficient. Plea — 'Nothing erroneous.
    Judgment — Manifest error.
   By the Court.

It is not competent for the defendant to take advantage of any irregularity or obscurity in tbe award which respects other parties, and which they do not complain of, and have performed, when said award so far as it respects him is mutual, certain, and final.  