1878 ST. PARISH certain disputes which had arisen between the parties respecting the receipts and disbursements received for GEORGE'S the sale of school lands at Parrsboro', and the rents, issues and profits thereof, were referred to them; that they had heard the parties, their counsel, attorneys, witnesses and evidence produced on behalf of either party, and duly weighed and considered the same; and as it was provided by the rule that they should make a separate award concerning the school lands: v. KING. They, therefore, awarded that the Defendant was indebted to the Plaintiffs, as such executrix, on the said school moneys, in the sum of one thousand four hundred dollars, and they awarded "that the Defendant do pay to the Plaintiffs the said sum of $1,400, and that judgment be entered for the Plaintiffs for that amount." The second award, dated the same day, signed by all the arbitrators, stated that the rule of Court, amongst other things, recited that the cause and all matters in difference between the parties had been referred to them; that they had heard and examined the parties, their counsel and attorneys, and all witnesses and evidence adduced on behalf of the Plaintiffs and Defendant, and had duly weighed and considered the same; they awarded and adjudged, of and concerning the premises, that the Plaintiffs were entitled to recover the lands claimed in the writ of ejectment in the cause, and ordered that judgment in ejectment be entered for the Plaintiffs, with costs of suit. They further recited, that by the rule of Court, all accounts respecting the receipt and disbursements of all moneys received from the interest, rent and sale of the glebe and church lands at Parrsboro' by the late W. B. King, or his agents, or by the Defendant as his executrix, were also referred to them, as well as all accounts and differences between the said Parish of St. George 1878 ST. PARISH v. KING. and the Defendant individually. They further recited that they had heard the parties, their witnesses, evidence, counsel and attorneys of and respecting the GEORGE'S same; and having duly weighed and considered the same, they awarded that the Defendant should pay to the Plaintiffs the sum of one dollar in full of the same, saving and excepting the matters in controversy respecting the school lands, on which, as required by the rule, they had made a separate award; that judgment should be entered for the Plaintiffs for the said sum of one dollar. They also awarded and adjudged that the Defendant should pay all the costs of the reference and award. On the 6th February, 1877, a rule nisi was obtained to set aside the awards on the following grounds: "1st. That the said award or awards, is and are not, nor is either of them, final and conclusive, or in accordance with the requirements of the rule of reference herein. 2nd. Because the arbitrators did not determine and decide all matters submitted to them under the said rule of reference and the evidence in the cause. 3rd. Because the arbitrators have not, as they were required to do, determined and passed upon all accounts respecting the receipts and disbursements of all moneys received from the interest, rent and sale of the glebe and church lands, and the buildings thereon, at Parrsboro', by the late Rev. W. B. King or his agents, or by the Defendant, as his executrix, as well as all accounts and differences between the said Parish of St. George and the said Defendant individually. 4th. Because the said arbitrators did not make their award of and concerning the receipt and disbursement of moneys received for the sale of the school lands at Parrsboro' and rents, issues nd profits of the same, and every 1878 ST. GEORGE'S PARISH V. KING. matter connected therewith, adjusting the accounts and settling the balance due thereon, as required in and by the said rule of reference. 5th. Because the said award or awards, and both and each of them is and are uncertain and inconclusive, and do not finally determine the matters referred to the said arbitrators in and by the said rule of reference. 6th. Because the said award is illegal, uncertain and void." The rule was granted on the affidavit of the Defendant's counsel stating the nature of the action. That the Defendant was the widow of the late Rev. W. B. King, who was in his lifetime Rector of Parrsboro', and she was executrix of his will. That Defendant claimed there were large amounts due to her husband in his lifetime by Plaintiff, and to her as his executrix and in her individual capacity; and it was agreed by the parties to have all matters in difference referred to arbitration, and the rule of reference was entered into, and the usual plea in ejectment pleaded pro formâ in the suit. That the accounts between the Plaintiffs and the late Rev. W. B. King in his liftime, and the Plaintiffs and Defendant, as executrix, since his death, were fully gone into and investigated before the arbitrators, and they made their awards. The affidavit concludes that the deponent is advised and believes that the awards so made are not in accordance with the rule of reference, and do not find the separate liability of the late W. B. King in his lifetime, or the liability of the Defendant, as his executrix, since the death of the said W. B. King, or of the Defendant in her individual capacity. The case was argued, and, on the 17th of March, the rule was made absolute, with costs. From that decision the Plaintiffs appealed to this Court. Mr. Gormully, for the Appellant: 1878 Sr. GEORGE'S The Court below ought not to have set aside the award, because, under the Revised Statutes of Nova PARISH Scotia (1), the grounds for setting aside the award should have been specifically set forth in the rule to shew cause. [THE CHIEF JUSTICE:-Was this objection taken in the Court below ?] It does not appear by the printed case, but I am instructed it was. He cited the following authorities in support of this contention, and pointed out that in Nova Scotia the Statute required the grounds to be specifically stated:-Boodle v. Davies (2); Grenfell v. Edgecomb (3); Gray v. Leaf (4); Staples v. Hay (5). As to the merits of the case, Appellants contend that the awards are perfectly good. By the rule of reference made with the consent of both parties, a direction was given to the arbitrators to make two awards-one respecting the school lands and one respecting the glebe lands. The arbitrators made two awards which have been set aside in the Court below. The objection to the award respecting the school lands in the Court below was, that it was not sufficiently final, and that it was not sufficiently certain. The arbitrators, after reciting that certain disputes were referred to them, and that they had heard the parties, their counsel and attorneys, as well as all witnesses and evidence produced for or on behalf of either party, and having duly weighed and considered the same, (the word "same" here necessarily means everything referred to them,) awarded that the Defendant, as executrix, was indebted to the Plaintiffs in the said school moneys in (1) 4th Series, ch. 109, sec. 14. (2) 3 A. & E. 200, per Coleridge, J., at 210. (3) 7 Q. B. 661. v. KING. 1878 ST. PARISH v. KING. the sum of $1,400, and that the said amount should be paid to the Plaintiffs. There was nothing in the rule GEORGE'S requiring the arbitrators to decide as to amount due by the Defendant in her different capacities; and the following authorities support Appellant's contentions, that such an award cannot be set aside on the ground of uncertainty; Russell on awards (1); Boodle v. Davies (2). Neither is there, on the face of the award, anything to show that the arbitrators have not finally adjudicated on all the matters referred to them. On this point reference was made to Birks v. Trippett (3). Neither isthe school lands award objectionable because it finds that the Respondent is indebted, as Executrix, to the Appellants in the sum of $1,400, and directs the Respondent to pay that sum to the Appellants, and the submission by the Respondent to refer is a submission to the arbitrators of the fact, whether the Respondent, as executrix, has assets or not; and the finding is a finding of assets, and creates a personal liability to pay. Worthington v. Barlow (4). The other award as to the glebe lands, being an award de premissis, is final and conclusive. The leading case is The Duke of Beaufort and The Swansea Harbor Trustees (5). See also Harrison v. Creswick (E); and the most recent case of all Jewell v. Christie (7). Moreover, the arbitrators had power under the said rule to award generally, as they have done, and were not bound to find separately the state of the account between the late Mr. King and the Appellants; between the Respondent, as executrix of the late Mr. King, and the Appellants; between the Respondent individually and the Appellant. (1) 4th ed., pp. 277 and 278. (2) 3 A. & E. 200. (3) Williams' notes to Saunder's Rep., vol. 1, p. 37, and cases there (4) 7 T. R. 146. (5) 8 C. B. N. S. 146. (7) L. R. 2 C. P. 296: |