
    Newland administrator of Newland against Douglass.
    This was an action of assumpsit. The intestate and defendant had submitted their accounts and controversies to five arbitrators who awarded $1 50 cts. in favour of the intestate, which was paid to him by the defendant, mi • -i t • A-, a/» i * I he present suit was brought to recover frlyo 1 ct. being the amount of a mistake made by the arbitrators in the subtraction of figures in making up the award. To . , „ . . . „ , , prove the mistake, two of the arbitrators were called and sworn upon the trial. The judge ruled .that the proof ivas inadmissible, and a verdict was accordingly taken for ° ■ the defendant.
    Where arbi-' senby thepar-4i®s’ ,make a mistake in the calculation, of the sum to be awarded, an “c¡íj0"0'l|:lie!at'^ correct the mistake. The evidence of the proveíhe mistake> }s inad' missible.
    The case was submitted without argument, and the only question was as to the competency of the proof.
   Per Curiam.

The evidence was inadmissible, and a suit at law will not lie, to re-examine the merits of an award. A court of chancery may correct a palpable mistake.or miscalculation, made by the arbitrators, or relieve against their partiality or corruption. (3 Atk. 644.) But there is no such remedy at law, in a case of submission, not within the statute. (2 Wils. 148. 1 Salk. 73.)

Judgment for the defendant.  