
    Oppenhiemer against Comly.
    
      Wednesday, January 1.
    Itisnoterror that it does notap. pear by the record,that the defendant the time and arbitrators,
    In Error.
    ERROR to the District Court of the city and county of Philadelphia.
    
    The defendant below was served with a rule of arbitration, and not appearing at the prothonotary’s office, arbitrators were appointed without him. The arbitrators met at the time and place appointed, and the defendant not appearing, they heard the plaintiff’s evidence, and made an award in his favour. It did not appear on the record, that the defendant had notice of the time and place of meeting of the referees. After the filing of the award, the defendant gave security for debt and costs, in order to obtain a stay of execution.
    Phillips, for the plaintiff in error.
    Edwards, contra.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Tilghman C. J.

The principle established by the Court Is this, — while the proceedings remain in Court, that is to say, until the arbitrators are appointed, it must appear by the record, that every thing is regular. The arbitrators cannot be appointed ex parte, unless it appears on the record, that the absent party had notice. But where the arbitrators are once appointed, the proceedings are out of Court, and it Is not expected that every thing which is transacted before them shall appear on record. The Court cannot presume, therefore that the defendant had no notice of the meeting of the arbitrators, merely because it does not appear that he had notice ; we are, therefore, of opinion, that there is no error appearing on this record, and that the judgment should be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.  