OVER

f land dto ss g with , arose

e paid

HU V'il- »long- Land ing ü sented perty.

f the Boyer aking ere is

being s who ended

tongue thing es not led to r sell-

) pay wwhatlong him.

re, be

ARBITRATION.

NUPERIOR COURT, Montreal, 1Sth september 1872. Present: MacKkay, Miro "" us BUTTERS.

An oo... for execution Was asked from the court, upon an award made under the Corn Exchange Act, Under that act, the Corn Ex: change has power to appoint arbitrators, to settle disputes between its members. Certain formalities are prescribed, and, among others, that the arbitrators must be sworn, and that there must be a submi ion in writing, at the commencement of the proceedings, and within five days alter the award itself, all questions connected with it may be reviewed. The award, if confirmed, is then a tinal one, and execution may issue upon it, The arbitrators made an award against defendant, which was confirmed by the Board of Review. Plaintiff moved for an exequatur, and defendant answered, alleging irregularities, among others, that the arbitrators had not been sworn. Defendant, however, had objected to nothing until after the award :

Hold: That, as the formalities had not been complied with, plaintiff could not succeed, and the motion wonld be rejected, but without costs, as defendant had not objected until after he saw what the award was.

MackAY, J.: In this case, an order for execution was asked " nthe court, upon an award made under the Corn Excha \ct. Under the act, the Corn Exchange has power to oppu..…. arbitrators to settle business disputes between its members. Certain formalities are prescribel and, amonpgst others, that the arbitrators must be sworn, and there must be a subinission in writing at the commencement of the proceedings. Within five days after, the award itself, all questions connected with it may be reviewed by the Bourd of Review. The award, if confirmed, is then to be à finality, and execution may issue upon it. The parties to the present case, having a difference respecting some damaged grain, the question was submitted to arbitration, but the arbitrators were not sworn and there was no submission in writing. The arbitrutors, on the 28th of june, made an award against Butters. On the 3rd of july, the Board of Review were in action, on an appeal taken by Butters from the award. On the 8th of

july, there seemed to have been an attempt to cure what was

defective in the first proceedings. The Board of Review made an award confirming the original award. Mitchell now moved the court for an exequatur, and Butters answered that there never was power sufficient to the arbitrators ; that they were not sworn; that witnesses were heard before the Board of Review. It appeared that the Board of Review did reopen the case and heard witnesses; they had right to do so. Butters, speculating for an award in his favor, objected to

nothing till after it was rendered. TI regret that it is not in the power of the court to order an exequatur. Mitcheïl claims that his award is a special one, under an act of parliament. If so, the formalities imposed by that act must be complied with, one of these is that there must be a submission in writing. The want of a submission prevents the court from granting Mitchell’s motion. The award is so vague that, on this account also, Mitchell cannot succeed. An award to warrant an execution ought to read as a finality. The court is disposed to treut arbitrators as favourably as possible, and it is a matterof regret that I must reject the application in this case. I reject the motion, but I do so without costs, because Butters contributed to the want of formalities, and never intimated that he would object; and he should not have resisted the carrying out of the award.” (2 R. C., 480.)