
    CONSTITUTIONAL COURT,
    COLUMBIA,
    APRIL, 1803.
    Alken v. Bolan.
    The court will not sot aside an award except for misbehaviour of the ar-' bitrators, such as gross partiality, collusion, or fraud; or for a mistake, by which the award is made to operate in a way they did not intend ; or for some mistake apparent on the lace of the award. Evidence will not be admitted to shew, that the arbitrators have erred in judgment, either as to law, or fact, whore such judgment is free from the imputation of fraud or partiality.
    Motion for a new trial. The cause was tried in Richland district, before Trezevant, J. Pending ihe suit, the parties submitted to arbitrament, by bond, and it was conditioned that the award should be read in evidence at the trial. Before the trial, the defendant filed sundry exceptions to the award, and gave plaintiff notice that these would be offered against the award, if produced in evidence on the trial. These objections having been made and argued in the district court, were overruled. The same were now made, and it was contended on the motion for a now trial, that they were sufficient to have precluded t.lie plaintiff from the benefit of the award as evidence at the trial. The objections were principally these, viz : That the arbitrators acted under- the impression of false principles of law ; that evidence was discovered after the award, not known before, which would materially affect the matter submitted; and that the award was not final.
    Hall, for defendant,
    cited 3 Bur. 1258; 3 Atk. 494; 2 Yern. 725; 1 Dallas 313; 2 Bl. Rep. 955. He argued that every ground for relief in equity to set aside an award, is a good ground to set aside au award, when offered in evidence in a case like the present, or to be made a judgment of a court of law. And that where arbitrators mistake the fact, or the law which ought to govern the facts, their award ought not to stand.
    Egan, for plaintiff.
   The court

(all the judges present, except Grimke, J.)

said, that awards are entitled to groat favor and indulgence, and ought not to be too rigidly examined and construed. That it was a m< de of deciding controversies which ought not to be discouraged : and there, fore the courts had never set aside awards, except for misbehaviour of arbitrators, as on account of gross partiality, collusion, or fraud ; or else on account of some mistake, which arbitrators sometimes may fall into without design, by which their award is made to operate in a way they did not intend ;. or for some mistake apparent' on the face of the award. An award will not be set aside, upon suggestions, or proofs, that the arbitrators have acted upon wrong impressions of the justice of the case, in matters of fact, or of law ; or in other words, oh account of the wrong' judgment of the arbitra, tors, where such judgment is free from the imputation of fraud or partiality. The Case cited from Dallas does not apply, having arisen upon a statute law of Pennsylvania.

A new trial refused.

N. B. There did not app'eaflo be any ground for the other exceptions.

Nolo. — The law of Pennsylvania seems perfectly to correspond wllli the prad¿ico which has obtained in this state, and our rules of court, in England, awards under rules of court are conclusive, unless some corruption, or other misbehaviour of arbitrators, is proved. The courts of equity indeed have taken a wider gro.-nd, and wherever a plain error appears, either in matter of fact, or law, they will enquire into it. 2 Vern 705; 1 Vern. 157; 3 Atk. 494 Quiere, whether the error must appear on the award? In Pennsylvania, where the approbation of the court is made a nefcessary ingredient in the confirmation of reports of arbitrators, the courts Will hear allegations against them, either on tlio ground of an evident mistake in matter of fact, or error in matter of law, as well as for corruption, j&c. The sacredhess of awards ought not to be extended beyond that of verdicts. 1 Dallas 315. They have the same operation llenas verdicts.  