the findings of the arbitrators will not be disturbed on appeal, though it appears in the record that there was great informality in the proceedings.— Harper v. Pike County, 52 Ga. 659.

(Ill.) Where a cause is submitted to arbitration, and, on the coming in of the award, one party stands by and suffers judgment to be entered on the award, to which technical objections might be made, he will not be permitted to make such objections on appeal.-Duncan v. Fletcher, 1 Ill. (Breese) 323. (Ind.) An award on which a justice of the peace has rendered judgment may be impeached, before the justice, within 10 days from the rendition of the judgment, or it may be impeached in the circuit court on appeal, though it was not objected to before the justice, under Rev. St.-Payne v. Miller, 6 Blackf. 178.

(Ind.) An objection to an award returned to the circuit court on account of its not having been returned in time is waived if not made in that court.Ellison v. Chapman, 7 Blackf. 224.

(Iowa) On appeal from an award, an objection that appellant's name does not appear in the title of the report of the arbitrators appealed from cannot be made for the first time in the Supreme Court.-City of Marion v. Ganby, 68 Iowa, 142, 26 N. W. 40.

(Ky.) If the parties were duly served with copies of the award, an objection that the arbitrators proceeded ex parte will not be sustained in the superior court, unless the objection was made in the court below.-Hopkins v. Sodouskie, 4 Ky. (1 Bibb) 148.

(Ky.) No appeal lies from an award by arbitrators under the statute of reference, although by entry of record it is made the judgment of the court, unless some exception is taken affecting the validity of the award under the statute.-Payne v. Payne, 8 Ky. Law Rep. 591.

(Me.) Where an action was submitted to referees by a rule of court, and the party in whose favor the report was rendered after the rejection thereof pleaded, and judgment was rendered against him on the issues, he cannot, on appeal therefrom, raise the question of the rejection of the report.—Vance v. Carle, 7 Me. (7 Greenl.) 104.

(Me.) An objection that the demand was not annexed and submitted as required by statute is waived if not raised before the referees.-Deering v. Saco, 68 Me. 322.

(Md.) Since exceptions to an award are analogous to a motion in arrest of judgment, and are not within the operation of Acts 1825, c. 117, they may be inquired into by the Court of Appeals, though not raised and decided in the court below.-Grove v. Swartz, 45 Md. 227.

(Minn.) While, on an appeal from a judgment entered on the award of arbitrators, the appellant may make any objection to the validity of the submission, though such objection was not raised below, the Supreme Court will not consider any error or irregularity in the proceedings after a valid submission, where it was not objected to below.-Heglund v. Allen, 30 Minn. 38, 14 N. W. 57.

(N. Y.) A failure to move to vacate an award will not deprive the party of the right to appeal from the order confirming the award, and the judgment entered upon it.-In re Poole, 5 Civ. Proc. R. 279.

(Pa.) An award cannot be attacked for the first time on appeal on the ground of the misbehavior of the referees.-Sell v. Laufer, 141 Pa. 159, 21 Atl. 504.

(Tex.) Where it was agreed that a case should be submitted to arbitration, and it did not appear by the record that a day had been appointed by the clerk for a hearing, or that notice had been properly given to the parties, or the arbitrators had been sworn, it was held that the party wishing to take advantage of these omissions must object in the court below.-Hall v. Little, 11 Tex. 404.

(Tex.) Where the parties to an action agree to submit the matter in dispute to arbitration, if the record does not show affirmatively, on appeal, that the parties had notice of the time and place of meeting of the arbitrators, the appellate court will presume notice was given, in the absence of any exception being taken in the court below.-McHugh v. Peck, 29 Tex. 141.

(Vt.) A defense that an award of arbitrators is void because not following the submission cannot first be raised on appeal.-Sargeant v. Butts, 21 Vt. 99. V. EFFECT OF TRANSFER OF CAUSE AND STAY OF PROCEEDINGS. (Ark.) Where an award is made in the probate court by arbitrators, an appeal to the circuit court from the judgment entered thereon does not abrogate the award, but the matter comes up for trial de novo; and, if necessary, the circuit court may take evidence to determine the contents of the agreement for submission, or to identify the order for submission.-Blanton v. Littell, 44 S. W. 716, 65 Ark. 76.

(Pa.) After a second rule on plaintiff to file his declaration, he arbitrated the cause, and defendant brought the cause into court again by an appeal from the award. Held that, though the rules to declare were suspended during the time the cause was actually before the arbitrators, they were revived by the appeal, and hence a non pros. was properly entered on plaintiff's failure to declare within the usual time after a second rule.-Newton v. Wolbert, 1 Browne, 141.

(Pa.) Where a cause is brought back into court by appeal, all the rules that have been entered, and which were suspended by the arbitration are revived.-De Lisle v. Priestman, 1 Browne, 115.

(Pa.) In the case of an appeal by one of two defendants against whom an award was made, a fieri facias shall not issue against the defendant who did not appeal, until the determination of the appeal by the other defendant. -Sterrett v. Ramsay, 2 Watts, 91.

(Pa.) Where, after an award of arbitrators in favor of the plaintiff, in a suit upon a contract against several defendants, one or more of them take out individual appeals, execution cannot issue against the nonappealing defendants during the pendency of the appeals.-Hine v. Reading Industrial Mfg. Co., 2 Woodw. Dec. 151.

(Pa.) An award of arbitrators in favor of a plaintiff, from which he appeals, is not a lien upon the defendant's real estate so long as the appeal stands. Lentz v. Lamplugh (1849) 12 Pa. (2 Jones) 344, followed, and Appeal of Wilkinson (1870) 65 Pa. (15 P. F. Smith) 189, distinguished.-Appeal of Eaton, 83 Pa. 152.

(Pa.) One who has appealed to the court of common pleas from the award of arbitrators, under the voluntary arbitration act of 1836, is, pending such appeal, precluded from further proceedings under such act, and must proceed to trial in court in the usual way.-Church v. Finn (Com. Pl.) 1 Lack. Leg. N. 113.

VI. RECORD AND PROCEEDINGS NOT IN RECORD.

(Ala.) The court will not look into the transcripts of cases appended to a writ of error taken upon a judgment on the award of arbitrators, unless it appear from the submission that these particular cases were referred.-Lamar v. Nicholson, 7 Port. 158.

(Ala.) When a pending suit is submitted to arbitration, without an order of court, under an agreement that the award shall be made the judgment of the court, the submission and award do not constitute a part of the record, unless so made by order of the court, and identified.—Thomason v. Odum, 31 Ala. 108, 68 Am. Dec. 159.

(Cal.) An award is conclusive as to matters submitted when no transcript of the testimony given before the arbitrators, which was reduced to writing, is filed with the court, and the affidavits of the parties as to what the testimony was are contradictory.-Fulmore v. McGeorge, 91 Cal. 611, 28 Pac. 92. (Ga.) The minutes of arbitrators in a case referred to them cannot be made part of the record.-Walker v. Walker, 25 Ga. 257.

(Ga.) Under the laws governing arbitrations, where numerous objections are filed to an award, on the ground that it is contrary to evidence or the weight of evidence, the testimony submitted to the arbitrators should be submitted to the court, on any proceeding for a review, to enable it to pass intelligently upon the objections made. The fact that the objections were demurred to for insufficiency will not dispense with this.—Akridge v. Patillo, 44 Ga. 585.

(Ill.) In case of the discontinuance of a cause on the ground that the parties had submitted the matter in dispute to arbitration, if it is desired to question the fact of submission, the evidence in respect thereto should be preserved in a bill of exceptions. In the absence of proof to the contrary, it will be presumed the court below decided correctly that there was a submission.-Cunningham v. Craig, 53 Ill. 252.

(Ill.) Objections to a submission and award which are not preserved by bill of exceptions cannot be considered.-Forman Lumber Co. v. Ragsdale, 12 Ill. App. (12 Bradw.) 441.

(Ind.) The presumption is that an award is justified by all the evidence; and, where it does not appear that all the evidence given to the arbitrators was before the court, it may be presumed that the court did not assume to, if indeed it could, look to the merits of the award.-Allen v. Hiller, 8 Ind. 310. (Ind.) If arbitrators err in the admission or rejection of evidence, or in matters of practice during the hearing, the party affected thereby must bring up those questions by a bill of exceptions or a special statement thereof incorporated with the report.-Wabash & E. Canal Trustees v. Huston, 12 Ind. 276.

(Ind.) Where the evidence submitted to arbitrators is not in the record, it will be presumed that the award was justified by the evidence.-Buxton v. Howard, 38 Ind. 109.

(Ind.) In summary proceedings to obtain judgment on an award, no motion for a new trial is either contemplated or necessary to preserve questions on the evidence.-Beeber v. Bevan, 80 Ind. 31.

(Iowa) When there is no showing by bill of exceptions, or otherwise, upon what facts the court acted in setting aside the award of arbitrators, the Supreme Court will not review its rulings.-Hamble v. Owen, 20 Iowa, 70.

(Mass.) On an appeal from the judgment of the court of common pleas on an award of arbitrators, nothing can be considered but some error apparent on the record, which would be examinable on a writ of error.-Ward v. American Bank, 48 Mass. (7 Metc.) 486.

(Mass.) Although an award under Gen. St. c. 147, may state the legal principles upon which it is made, and although there may be error of law apparent therein, such error cannot be revised in the Supreme Court, unless it appears from the submission or the award that such revision was intended. -Ellicott v. Coffin, 106 Mass. 365.

(Mass.) The judge's memorandum of the ground of his holding on a motion to set aside the award is no part of the record.-Standish v. Old Colony R. Co., 129 Mass. 158.

(Mass.) An appeal from an award must be from a matter of law apparent on the record; and where, upon an appeal from the judgment of the superior court in the matter of an award of arbitrators, the record does not show the grounds on which the superior court acted in ordering an award to be set aside, it cannot be held that the grounds were insufficient in law.-Bent v. Erie Telegraph & Telephone Co., 144 Mass. 165, 10 N. E. 778; Downes v. Same, 10 N. E. 782.

(Mass.) A party appealing from the denial of a motion for judgment on an award of arbitrators should present his case by exceptions showing the ground on which the motion was denied.-Giles v. Royal Ins. Co., 60 N. E. 786, 179 Mass. 261.

(Mich.) Where a pending suit is submitted to arbitrators, pursuant to Comp. Laws, c. 217, and their award is confirmed by the court, and a judgment rendered upon it, the record need not include the evidence before the arbitrators, nor requests made to them to find specifically on certain points, nor their findings in response to such requests; and the fact that these were returned by the arbitrators, and filed in the court below, and are embraced in the return to the writ of error in the case, does not authorize the Supreme Court to review them.-Chicago & M. L. S. R. Co. v. Hughes, 28 Mich, 186. (Mich.) Under How. St. § 8483, which authorizes the court to correct an award of arbitrators in certain cases, where the evidence on which the award is based is not preserved it cannot be determined on appeal whether such award is excessive.-Taylor v. Smith, 93 Mich. 160, 52 N. W. 1118.

(Neb.) A bill of exceptions, made up of affidavits presented on objections to an award, which does not purport, and is not certified, to present the evidence taken before the arbitrators, cannot be considered on the question whether or not the award was sustained by the evidence.-Shutt v. Hebebrand, 95 N. W. 785, 1 Neb. (Unof.) 573.

(N. Y.) On the refusal of a court of common pleas in New York to set aside a report of referees for alleged errors, if the losing party desires to review such decision, he must procure a statement of facts from the court of common pleas, to be placed upon the record in the form of a special or supplementary report of the referees, in the nature of a special verdict or bill of exceptions.-Melvin v. Leaycraft, 17 Wend. 169; McPherson v. Cheadell, 24 Wend. 15.

(N. Y.) An appeal from an order confirming the report of arbitrators, and from the judgment entered on it, must be heard on the papers before the court where the order was. A case forms no part of these papers, and none can be proposed or served to review proceedings relating to awards.Poole v. Johnston, 32 Hun, 215.

(Tenn.) Where the parties have submitted the case to arbitration, agreeing that the award shall be made in the Supreme Court, alleged errors not apparent on the face of the award will not be considered unless pointed out specifically.-Elliott v. Bass, 63 Tenn. (4 Baxt.) 354.

VII. REVIEW.

The court will not disturb the findings of arbitrators on questions of fact, where the evidence was conflicting.

-(Ga.) Carr v. Smith, 58 Ga. 361;

(Pa.) Becker v. Wesner, 1 Woodw. Dec. 202.

(Ala.) Chancery will review an award, dividing lands among joint owners, where the difference in value of the allotments is such as to strike the mind at once as a matter of injustice, or showing positive corruption in making the decision.-Bumpass v. Webb, 4 Port. 65, 29 Am. Dec. 274.

(Ala.) Where a judgment confirming an award states that the "arbitrators were sworn according to law," if it does not appear from the record that an oath was administered before the award was made, the Supreme Court of Alabama will intend that proof was made that such was the fact.-Price v. Kirby, 1 Ala. 184.

(Ala.) A judgment rendered on an award of arbitrators will be affirmed, on error, unless the record aflirmatively shows that the award was obnoxious to the objections urged against it.-Waring v. Gilbert, 25 Ala. 295.

(Ga.) When an award, after being objected to, has been submitted to and confirmed by a jury, and a new trial has been refused, it will require a very strong case to induce the appellate court to overrule the judgment of the court below, and grant a new trial.-McCullough v. Mitchell, 42 Ga. 495.

(Ga.) Whether an award is contrary to evidence is a question of law for the court.-Overby v. Thrasher, 47 Ga. 10.

(Ga.) In the absence of the full record, it will be presumed that a proper order was given for entry of judgment on the award.-Laramore v. McKinzie, 60 Ga. 532.

(Ga.) Exceptions to an award do not bring up the whole case de novo. Fraud, accident, or mistake in procuring the award may be shown, but evidence cannot be introduced merely for the purpose of strengthening the case made before the arbitrators.-Hardin v. Almand, 64 Ga. 582.

(Ga.) The court will not set aside an arbitrator's award as being contrary to evidence if there is any evidence to support it.-Lester v. Callaway, 73 Ga. 730.

(Ga.) On exceptions to an award, the court did not err in instructing the jury that they were not authorized to consider the legal ability, business skill, or systematic habits of the arbitrators.-Jackson v. Roane, 90 Ga. 669, 16 S. E. 650, 35 Am. St. Rep. 238.

(Ga.) The omission to give one of the parties to an arbitration notice of the rendition of an award against him was harmless where the court, at such party's instance, set aside a judgment entered by it on the award, and fully

heard such party on exceptions to the award.-McMillan v. Allen, 25 S. E. 505, 98 Ga. 405.

(Ind.) A defendant appealing from the judgment of a justice of the peace on an award cannot have the cause tried by a jury in the circuit court, unless the award be first set aside for fraud, corruption, or other undue means.— Rousan v. Moffett, 3 Blackf. 141.

(Ind.) Under a provision allowing an appeal from an award within 30 days from the date of the recording of such award in the books of one of the parties, an award was made on July 2d at considerable distance from the place said books were kept, and the appeal bond was filed August 3d. Held that, as some time must necessarily have elapsed between the making and the recording of the award, it must be presumed the appeal was taken in time, in the absence of some showing to the contrary.-Butler v. Parker, 9 Ind. 534. (Ind.) The preliminary proof required by 2 Rev. St. p. 320, §§ 11-13, to be made before a rule to show cause why judgment shall not be rendered on an award can be granted, but will be presumed to have been made where the record on appeal does not affirmatively show that it was not made before the rule was granted.-Bash v. Christian, 77 Ind. 290.

(Mich.) Errors of arbitrators, adjusting a claim, in excluding evidence that would have been admissible in a court of law, are not subject to correction by an appellate court reviewing an action at law upon the same claim.— Raymond v. Farmers' Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 72 N. W. 254, 114 Mich. 386.

(Neb.) In reviewing the judgment on an award of arbitrators every presumption is in favor of the award.-In re Johnson, 127 N. W. 133.

(N. J.) In the absence of corruption or partiality of arbitrators or fraud practiced by one of the parties to the arbitration, the award cannot be reviewed as not justified by the evidence submitted to the arbitrators.-Muth v. Booye, 55 Atl. 287, 69 N. J. Law, 266.

(N. Y.) Under Code Civ. Proc. § 2381, which provides for an appeal from an order vacating an award, or from a judgment entered upon an award, an appeal from the award of an arbitrator, to whom questions of law were submitted on an agreed statement of facts, presents for review only such questions as would be raised by a motion under sections 2374 and 2375 to vacate, modify, or correct the award, and does not bring up for review the question as to the correction of the award upon the merits; and where no motion has been made to vacate, modify, or correct any defect, the award is not re viewable. Judgment (Sup.) 62 N. Y. Supp. 1068, 48 App. Div. 433, affirmed. -Wilkins v. Allen, 62 N. E. 575, 169 N. Y. 494.

(N. C.) Since arbitrators are not required to find a statement of facts and conclusions of law, unless the award contains erroneous views of the law as a basis of the award, their action, in the absence of fraud, will not be reviewed.-Smith v. Kron, 109 N. C. 103, 13 S. E. 839.

(Ohio) Upon an appeal from the adjustment of damages by arbitrators under the act incorporating the Warren Canal Company, the cause must be proceeded in by proper pleading, and an issue to a jury as in other cases.— Cooper v. Warren Canal Co., 7 Ohio, 242.

(Pa.) The Supreme Court, having no authority to review evidence on writ of error, will not reverse an order of the court of common pleas setting aside an award, in which it was stated that judgment for the sum awarded would not be given, because it was admitted that there were errors, which would reduce the award.-Gratz v. Phillips, 14 Serg. & R. 144.

(Pa.) Mistakes appearing on the face of a report are examinable in a court of error.-Sands v. Rolshouse, 3 Pa. (3 Barr) 456.

(Pa.) After an appeal from an award for plaintiff on a statement of claim on a promissory note, the plaintiff may, under the act of 1806, amend his narr., and declare on the original debt for which the note was given, if the cause of action is not thereby changed.-Robinson v. Taylor, 4 Pa. (4 Barr) 242. (Pa.) If the grounds on which a justice of the peace set aside an award do not appear, the court will presume they were sufficient.-Paul v. Cunningham, 9 Pa. (9 Barr) 106.

(Pa.) The Supreme Court will not undertake to rectify errors in awards of referees, which require the sanction of the common pleas, where the errors