
    JAMES R. WALKER vs. SALLY WALKER.
    Parol evidence is adniist-íbie to ^bow what matters are submitted to arbitration and vvbat matters are bvcnpht to the notice of arbitrators.
    An award is avoided by a mistake ie aw by an arbitrator as to what, it submitted to ids decision.
    The case of Brown vs. Brown, 4 Jom-s, Rep. 123, cited and appioved.
    Tbis was an action of debt on award tried before Heath, Judge, at Fall Term of Orange Superior Court, 1863.
    It appeared on the. trial that the plaintiff and defendant, on the 23d of March, 1859, chose John U. Kirkland and John Berry to settle a'dispute between them by arbitration, and executed an instrument under seal of which the following is a copy:
    Know all men by these presents that James R. 8. Walker and Sally Walker, both of the County of Orange and State of North Carolina, acknowledge themselves indebted in the sum of five thousand dollars to any person suing for the same good and lawful currency of .North Carolina, of which we bind ourselves and our heirs and assigns. In testimony whereof we set our hands and affix our seals, this .the 23d March, 185.9. „■
    The condition of the above obligation ,is such whereas James R, S. Walker and Salh Walker have agreed to leave a matter <b dispute i.o referees,^as they cannot settle it themselves,- viz: John U. Kirkland and John Berry, they are their referees to settle the matter in controversy ; James R. 8.- Walker having his letters examined on trial with other testimony. Sally Walker having the privilege to produce .testimony on the trial to rebut the evidence in said letters, with the understanding that the said James R. 8. Walker is to leave the mills which is in -dispute, surrender to Sally Walker the mill key and leave within ten days after this paper is signed. Then, after the referees hearing the testimony on both sides, shall decide that James R. S. Walker is entitled to'damages whatever" the damages shall be laid at, the said Sally Walker is to pay to the said Jemes R. S. Walker; but should the referees find, upon examination, that Sally Walker is damaged, instead of James R. S. Walker, then the said James R. S. Walker is to make it good to Sally Walker, whatever it be.
    The arbitrators found that the plaintiff had removed from Tennessee to this State at the solicitation of the defendant and in expectation of pecuniary advantages promised by her, and that he had suffered a loss thereby of $500, and that he was not indebted to her on the mill books or otherwise, and they award that she pay him $500, and that he deliver to her the mill books. The plaintiff proved the performance of what he was required to do, both by the dead and the award. The defendant contended that the arbitration had been corruptly conducted, and as evidence of this allegation showed that she had offered evidence before the arbitrators of a battery committed on her by the plaintiff, whereby sbe insisted sbe was greatly injured; which the arbitrators refused to hear. The plaintiff contended that this matter was not submitted to arbitration, and offered to show that the only matter submitted was a question of damages alleged to have arisen from the plaintiff’s having removed from .Tennessee to North Carolina, .because of promises made by the defendant to him, which were alleged to have been broken. To the reception of this evidence the defendant objected, on the ground that as the submission was by deed, parol evidence could not be given to show what was submitted. The Judge permitted the evidence to go the jury, reserving the question of its corn-potency, and giving leave to the defendant to move, to enter- a nonsuit in case he should be of opinion that the evidence offered by' the defendant was competent. Under the instructions of the Court, the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for the- amount awarded and interest. The defendant moved to enter a nonsuit according to leave given. The Court refused the motion and gave judgment for the plaintiff upon the verdict.
    
      Fowls for the plaintiff.
    
      Phillips for the defendant.
   Batilr, J.

It is a general rule that where an arbitrator-does not make his award upon all the matters submitted to him,-the award is entirely void '; and the defect may-be shown as a defence to an action on- the award. §, Watson oa Arb. and Award, 59 Law Lib., 121. But where the submission is of all matters in difference, or of all disputes, without specifying them, the arbitrator may make his award only of such things as lie has notice. Yet the award is good. Ibid. How can these rules be* made of any practical benefit to parties unless parol evidence is admissible to show what matters wore within the terms of the submission, or were brought to the notice of the arbitrator ? That such evidence is admissible for such purposes was directly decided by this Court in the case of Brown vs. Brown, 4 Jones, Rep. 123. Indeed, on the trial of the very case now before us. the presiding Judge, notwithstanding the submission was in'" writing, admitted parol. evidence on the part of the plaintiff to show that a certain matter was the only one submitted to the arbitrators,- and it seems to tis that upon the same principle the defendant-ought to have 'been permitted to offer testimony to rebut tbat of the plaintiff, by showing .that another matter was embraced within the terms of the submission, and was not acted on by the arbitrators.

But it is contended by the counsel for. the plaintiff that the testimony offered by the defendant and rejected by the Court was irrelevant, because it could tend to prove only that the arbitrators had committed a mistake In a matter of law, which, if so, would not hurt their award. That is true, if the mistake be committed when the arbitrators are acting within the scope of the authority conferred upon them, and upon matters within that scope. But it cannot be so as to an error in law by means of which they are induced to embrace within their award a matter not submitted, or reject one which was submitted, to them. See 1 Green on Ev., sec. 78. What are the terms of the submission, what is the true construction of such terms, and what things arc embraced witljin them, may present ques-tionsoflaw or of fact, and when presented the questions can only be decided conclusively, not by the arbitrators, but by the proper judicial tribunals of the country. But when the arbitrators are acting within the bounds of their authority, and only within those hounds, then they are the judges of the parties' own «election, and their decisions on questions of law ami of fact are binding on the parties, unless it can be shown that the arbitrators acted corruptly, or comminitted gross errors or mistakes in making their award. See the same section of Greenleaf on EAÚdenee.

His Honor having erred in rejecting the testimony offered by the defendant, the judgment must be .reversal and a renirc <!<• v-ovo awarded.  