
    Steeley against Irvine and another.
    
      July.
    
    trato” only at" tend at the a^ohíted for” their first meeting, he may adjourn without appointing other arbitrators in. those wToare absent, ifneither .party request, that may be filled by anewap- and an award mídebythe original arbitratarais good*
    In Error.
    
      Irvine Es? Doyle, who were partners in trade, were the plaintiffs below. A rule of arbitration was entered, three arbitrators appointed, and .a time and place fixed for their meeting, when only one of them attended, who,-after being sworn, adjourned to. meet at another time, at the same place, of which the defendant had notice. All three of the arbitrators attended at the time and place, appointed on the adjournment, and all three joined in an award in favour of the plaintiffs, l
    R was now contended by the plaintiff in error, in propria persona, that the arbitrator who attended at the first meeting, had no power to adjourn ; and that if he had, it.was his duty, before adjournment, to appoint two other arbitrators, in place of those who were absent,
    Hale, contra.
   The opinion of the Court was .delivered by

Tilghman C. J.

There can be no doubt, but the arbitrator who attended, had power to adjourn, because he had no authority to make an award, and therefore, an adjournment was necessary, or at least it was the most convenient way of continuing the suit. It.is certain also, that he had authority, by the 9th section of the act of 20th March, 1810, to appoint two arbitrators in the place of those who were absent. But it is the opinion of the Court, that as neither of the parties requested, that the place of the absent arbitrators should be then filled up by a new appointment, an adjourn- - ment, without making such appointment, was lawful, and the original arbitrators might then decide the cause. • The judgment is therefore to be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.  