
    CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, COLUMBIA,
    APRIL, 1806.
    Murrel v. Howard.
    On showing cause against a rule for making an award a judgment of the court, it was shown for cause that three of the five arbitrators who made the award, bad, since the award made, certified in writing that they had committed, inadvertently, a mistake in making up the award, and had not allowed one of the parties certain credits on account, which he was intitled to. It was held, that this cause was sufficient to stay the award of judgment by the court on the return of the award of arbitrators, provided tho mistake could be shown agreeable to the facts stated in the certificate.
    Motion to reverse a decision of Bay, J., in Union district. The cause had been referred to arbitration, and the arbitrators had made an award. Upon a rule to shew cause why the award should not be confirmed and made final, the plaintiff shewed for cause, a certificate signed by three of the five arbitrators, stating that by a mistake, (which mistake was discovered after the award was made,) certain credits had been allowed the defendant in the settlement of the accounts submitted, which ought not to have been allowed, as the same credits had been allowed on a note of the defendant, which was not within the submission. Bay, J., thought it would be attended with mischievous consequences to allow arbitrators to impeach, or defeat their own award, and overruled the objection. There was no suggestion of iraud or partiality.
    Nott, for the motion ; Gist, against it.
   Grimke, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court (all the judges present) 28th April. No improper motive had been imputed to the arbitrators in making the representation they did. It must be taken for granted that the mistake was made which they have stated ; and if so, it would be unjust to establish the award. Whether for such a cause as this it would be proper to set aside an award, alter it had been returned into court, and had been confirmed and made a judgment of the court, is not now the question to be determined ; but the question is, whether upon a rule to shew cause why an award delivered into couri should not receive the sanction ol the court, and be made a judgment thereof, and cause shewn as in the present case, such cause shewn ought not to be deemed sufficient to require a refusal to make the rule absolute, and to authorize an inquiry into the truth of the causes assigned. We think the judge who presided in the District Court did wrong in overruling the objection to the motion.to confirm the award, and therefore reverse his decision.

Motion granted.  