
    
      Ex parte McKinney and Thompson against Newcomb.
    On a motion to set aside an award which was agreed to be made a rule of court; the merits of the award are not inquirable into. It wilt not be set aside in a court of law, unless the arUIUaLUis ililVU acted dishon^J[IyOT cor’
    The parties had submitted to arbitration, and agreed that the submission should be made a rule of court. The award being for McKinney and Thompson, it was, early m this term on motion, made a rule of court, and performance demanded ; and now two motions were made ; one for an attachment against Newcomb for not performing the award, and another in hehalf of Newcomb to set aside the award, on the ground that the arbitrators had rejected a material witness, offered by Newcomb.
    
      Lockwood for Newcomb,
    cited 17 John. 410, 11 ; Kyd on Aw. 317 ; 1 Str. 695 ; 1 Burr. 278; 1 R. L. 125, 6.
      
    
    
      Anderson, for McKinney and Thompson.
    
      
       He also objected, that the submission could not be made a rule of court after the award, on the authority of Spettigue v. Carpenter, (3 P. Wms. 361;) but the court did not hesitate to disallow this objection, as the contrary is clearly settled; Alardes v. Campbell, 1 Barnard Rep. K. B. 152 ; Pownall v King, 6 Ves. 10. Caldw. on Arb. Am. ed. 20 ; and it was so he d ately, by this Court, in Ex parte Vasques, (ante, 29.)
    
   Curia.

Here is no pretence of dishonesty or corruption in the arbitrators. We do not examine the merits on an application to set aside the award. (2 Archb. Pr. 289. 2 Burr. 701. 1 Str. 301. 1 Saund. 327, d.) A mere raistake of the law is not a ground for our interference ; and js aq which is pretended. The case cited from the 17 Johnson was in a court of equity. The motion to set aside the award must be denied; and the attachment must go.

Rule accordingly.  