
    Heuitt and Russell vs. The State, use of Brown.
    Arpead from Baltimore county court. This was an ac-tum of debt brought upon John Chalmers’ bond as sheriff’ of Baltimore county, dated the 28th of December 1814. By consent of parties the cause was referred without any other pleadings but the declaration, to Henry Trapnall,' who awarded that the defendants, (the appellants,) pay to the plaintiff, (the appellee,) 8330 j04 and at the foot of his award the arbitrator refers to a statement annexed, which statement shows, that to September term 1815 of Baltimore county court, three writs-uf fieri facias were levied on the property of Brown; the defendant in the said writs, (being the person at whose instance and for whose use this action was brought), leaving in the hands of the sheriff, after payment of the debts and costs for which the writs of fieri facias 'issued, 856 41 due to Brown. At March term 18l6j one other writ of fieri fa* cias was levied on the property of Brown, which was sold to the amount of 8500, leaving a balance, after payment of the debt and costs, 8158 16, for which the fieri facias issued, together with the above .sum of g56 41 as due to Brown, of 8398 25. From this sum 868 21 was deducted, being the amount of a judgment against Brown, as garnishee of Chalmers, leaving the sum of §330 04 due, being the sum above awarded. The defendants objected to a judgment being entered on the award ‘‘because a sum of money has been awarded to be paid to the plaintiff by .the defendants,, which they were not bound to pay, the bond which they had entered into not being then in force, to wit, the sum of 8500, received ¿or property sold on a fieri facias, .returnable to March term 1816, at the suit of,” &c. The county court gave judgment for the debt in the declaration, and costs; to be released on payment of 8330 04, by the arbitrator awarded, with interest, &c. From this judgment the defendants appealed to this court.
    
      If an award da^ closes the ground taken by the arbitrator in form» iii£ his ^ opinion, the ease b upen to the inquiry, whether he committed a mistake in point of law
    The sheriff’s bond is an annual bond, and the sureties of each Sear are respomi* !e for the neglects, defaults, acts and receipts, of their principal, during the time only between giving the bond passed by them, and the execution of the next year’s bond
    If a question of law is decided by an arbitrator selected by the parties, for the purpose of finally stttling such a question between them, they are bound by the a■ward- Semble-
    
    Under a general submission to arbitrators their award majr be impeached ibr an error m law '
    ( The cause was argued before Buchanan, Earle, and Martin, J.
    
      Heath, for the Appellant,
    contended, 1. That a mistake in law was good cause to set aside an award. 2. That the award included monies which were received by the sheriff upon a fieri facias issued after the expiration of the year in which the bond was given. He cited Chace vs. Westmore, 13 East, 357. Aubert vs. Maze, 2 Bos. & Pull. 371. Delver vs. Barnes, 1 Taunt. 48. Wohlenberg vs. Lageman, 6 Taunt. 254 and Price vs. Hollis, 1 Maule & Selw. 105.
    No counsel argued for the appellee)
   The "opinion of tlié court was delivered by

Earle, J.

To the awárd returned to the court in this cause by the arbitrator, he has annexed a paper, contain* ing a statement of the sum awarded to be paid by the appellants to the appellee, and thé account on which the same in his judgment is chargeable to them. This paper is to be considered a part of the award; and as it discloses the ground taken by the arbitrator; in forming his opinion of the subject, the tase is open to,the inquiry; whether he committed a mistake in point of law, in the decision he made between the parties? The 'case submitted to arbitration, is a joint suit against the appellants, as securities in a sheriff’s bond, executed, on the 8th of December 1814} and thé siim for which they are rendered liable by the award of the arbitrator, was received by the sheriff for property sold under a fieri facias, returned to March term; 1816, of Baltimore county court. It is plain,, then, that the arbitrator undertook to determine on the liability in law of the appellants for the money thus received by the sheriff) and, that he has iñ this committed an error, the court cannot entertain a doubt. Thé sheriff’s bond is an; annual bond, and the securities of each year ate responsible for tlié neglects, defaults, acts and receipts, of their principal, during thé timé only between giving the bond passed by them; arid the execution of the next year’s bond by the sheriff. From the date of the process referred to, the sheriff must have remained in office in the year 1816; which he could not have doné, without executing a further sheriff’s bond in the Fall of 1815. The securities in this last bond are liable for the money received under thé fieri facias; if any persons aré liable for it, and not the appellants, who were securities in the bond executed in December 1814. The law question thus disposed of by the' arbitrator, he intended to decide according to law, but as he was not informed, and decided erroneously, his determination is not agreeable to his own wishes, and his award ought to háve been set aside on the motion made to the court below for that purpose.

It is to be observed, that this is not a distinct question of law, decided by an arbitrator selected by the parties, for the purpose of finally settling a law point between them. When such a case occurs, it will perhaps be the court’s opinion that they are bound to abide by the award, be it right 61* wrong. Price vs. Hollis, 1 Maule & Selw. 107. The parties here, referred to the arbitrator all matters in variance between them, including questions of right and fact, Witlioút the slightest intimation from any quarter, that íhé ¿ccouhtábility of the appellants, for the receipts of the sheriff in the year 1816, was tobe considered and decided on by him: íñ á case of general submission like tins; the authorities are clear that an award found-fed on a mistake in law of the arbitrator is for this reason impehchable. Kent vs. Elstob, 3 East, 18. Young vs. Walter, 9 Ves. 364. We therefore, disapprove of the judgment of Baltimore county court, and determine that it be Reversed.

íudsmíint reversed:  