
    CONSTITUTIONAL COURT,
    COLUMBIA,
    NOV. 1803.
    Shiver v. Ross.
    .On amotion to confirm an award, the court will not grant leave to examine the arbitrators, to discover whether they have not made a mistake, and why a discount was rejected. Awards cannot be impeached except for partiality, corruption, or other misbehaviour of the arbitrators, fa for some evident mistake, appearing on the face of the award. Vide Aiken v. Bolán, ante, p. 239.
    An action of assumpsit was brought in this case, and the parties .submitted the matters in difference between them to arbitration under a rule oí court. The arbitrators made ait award in favor of the plaintiff; whereupon he obtained a rule to shew cause why the award should not be approved and affirmed, and why he should not jiave leave to enter up judgment thereon.
    Branding, for the defeudant,
    shewed cause before Brevard, J. in Kershaw district court, and took several exceptions to the award. He insisted tnat the arbitrators had made a mistake in rejecting some part of the defendant’s discount; and moved for leave to examine 
      one of the arbitrators, to explain the award, and discover whether the same mistake was not made, and why the discount in question ^la(^ ^eBn reFcted : anc' further insisted, that the arbitrators should be sent back, to reconsider the award. The judge oveiruled the exceptions, and refused to order the award to be reconsidered ; and he said, that it was the settled,doctrine of our courts net to allow awards oí arbitrators to be impeached, except lor partiality, cor-, ruptioo, or other misbehaviour oí the arbitrators, which -was not suggested in this case; or for some evident mistake appearing on the face of the award. That if the arbitrators themelves, or a majority of them, would come forward and express their dissatisfaction with the award, and offer to explain some mistake, or miscalculation which they had involuntarily committed, it would be a good cause lor sending them out again, or referí mg ihe matter back to them, to reconsider their award ; or, even for refusing to affirm the award, without sending it back to be reconsidered. But as this was not the case in the present instance, the rule was ordered to be made absolute.
    Branding, for the defendant. Mathis, for the plaintiff.
   Upon a motion in this court to reverse the order of the district court, the same grounds were taken and relied on; but the court were all of opinion that the decision of. the district court was right, and that the doctrine on the subject had been correctly stated; and therefore discharged the motion.

Present, Gkoike, Waties, Johnson, Tkezhvant, and Brevard, Justices; Bay. J. absent.

Note. See 1 Atk. 64. 1 Dallas, 313. 3 Atk. 494. 3 Bur. 1258. 1 Bro. 271. 2 Bro. 701. 3 Atk. 529. Imp. Prac. K. B. 6th ed. 2 Bur. 701. 1 Str. 301, 1 Salk. 71, 1 Bur. 277. 1 Ves. jr. 369. 3 Ves. jr. 15.  