But it is not contended that the court could exercise any power in the nature of appellate jurisdiction merely, to correct this injustice. It is admitted that the award must stand, unless it can be impeached upon some distinct and recognized ground of relief in equity.
For the appellees it is submitted:--
First. That their relief, if any, must be in equity; because, as will presently be shown, it is principally claimed upon matters dehors the award, and which, therefore, could not be taken advantage of at law. 2 Story's Eq. Jur. § 1452, and cases there cited; 2 Wils. 148; 2 Johns. Ch. R. 367; 8 East, 344; McCormick v. Gray, 13 How. 27.
2. The record shows a case of gross partiality and misconduct on the part of the arbitrators, and this is ground of relief in equity.
I. As to the law. 2 Story's Eq.Ju. § 1452; Herrick v. Blair, 1 Johns. C. R. 101; Walker v. Frobisher, 6 Ves. 70; Van Cortlandt v. Underhill, 17 Johns. R. 411, per Spencer, Ch. J.
II. As to the facts.
These appear upon the allegations of the bill, and the admissions of the answer in part; and in other part by the insufficient and evasive denials of the answer.
From all which it clearly appears, that no evidence whatever was offered to the arbitrators of the damages sustained by Burchell, 'by reason of having been sued by said firms as aforesaid, or by reason of the doings of the said firms towards him.' Evidence was received and heard, under objection by the appellees, of certain offensive language and harsh proceedings, by one Cross, an attorney employed by the appellees for the collection of their debts against the appellant, and witnesses, who appear to have been certain bystanders for that purpose, were sworn that they 'should think, judging from the evidence they had heard given before said arbitrators, that said Burchell had sustained damages by reason of being sued as aforesaid, and by the statements of said Cross, in injury to his business and credit, to the amount of $10,000.'
Mr. Justice GRIER delivered the opinion of the court.
This case was submitted on bill and answer. The appellees, who were complainants below, pray the court to set aside an award made between the parties, as 'fraudulent and void.' The bill charges that 'the award was made either from improper and corrupt motives, with the design of favoring said Burchell, or in ignorance of the rights of the parties to said submission, and of the duties and powers of the arbitrators who signed the said award.'
The answer denies 'that the arbitrators acted unjustly, or with partiality or ignorance, in making their award; but avers that they acted justly, fairly, and with a due consideration of the rights of the parties.' This allegation of the answer must be taken to be true, unless it appears, from other facts admitted by it, that this conclusion or averment founded on them is incorrect.
In the consideration of this case, it will not be necessary to incumber it with a history of the facts charged and admitted or denied by the pleadings, except as they shall be incidentally noticed. The general principles, upon which courts of equity interfere to set aside awards, are too well settled by numerous decisions to admit of doubt. There are, it is true, some anomalous cases, which, depending on their peculiar circumstances, cannot be exactly reconciled with any general rule; but such cases can seldom be used as precedents.
Arbitrators are judges chosen by the parties to decide the matters submitted to them, finally and without appeal. As a mode of settling disputes, it should receive every encouragement from courts of equity. If the award is within the submission, and contains the honest decision of the arbitrators, after a full and fair hearing of the parties, a court of equity will not set it aside for error, either in law or fact. A contrary course would be a substitution of the judgment of the chancellor in place of the judges chosen by the parties, and would make an award the commencement, not the end, of litigation. In order, says Lord Thurlow, (Knox v. Symmonds, 1 Ves. Jr. 369,) 'to induce the court to interfere, there must be something more than an error of judgment, such as corruption in the arbitrator, or gross mistake, either apparent on the face of the award, or to be made out by evidence; but in case of mistake, it must be made out to the satisfaction of the arbitrator, and that if it had not happened, he should have made a different award.'