
    Wilson against Cross.
    Under the act of June 1836, after all the arbitrators have once assembled and been sworn, they have no power to supply vacancies.
    
      Semble, that in the absence of more than one arbitrator, the course is to adjourn if their attendance be obtainable, or to move the court for a recision of the rule.
    ERROR to Venango county.
    William Cross against Thomas Wilson. This cause was referred under the compulsory arbitration act: the parties met, and the arbitrators were sworn and adjourned until a certain day. On that day the parties met and two of the arbitrators were absent, one of whom was out of the state. The defendant refused to choose others, to continue the cause, or make any other disposition of it. Whereupon the arbitrator present chose two others, and they were sworn, and an award was made for the plaintiff. The defendant did not attend. The court below refused to set aside the award.
    
      M’Calmont, for plaintiff in error,
    cited the act of 1836, 1 Miles 21.
    
      Howe, contra cited,
    1 Miles 125.
   Per Curiam.

the act of the 14th of June 1836, arbitrators have not power to fill vacancies after the whole number have once been assembled. Where one of them is unable or unwilling to attend, the others are to proceed without him and award if they can agree, or else choose an umpire. There is no provision for proceeding in the absence of more than one. Perhaps the course would be to adjourn over if his attendance would probably be had, or to move the court for a recision of the rule ; but it is clear that no vacancy can be supplied. The proceedings in this case are consequently irregular.

Award set aside.  