6 V mommn REPORTER.
and all rents hereafter accruing under said lease. The award of said Barber
is to be made in writing and a copy thereof to be delivered to each of said
parties."
On the iirst day of October, 1879, the said arbitrator made his
award, by which he fixed the value of said land at the date of said
agreement, and the compensation to be paid therefor, at the sum of
$3,350. The respondent resists the claim of the complainant upon
various grounds, among which are the following: (1) That the arbi-
trator, after his appointment, refused to accept the same, and declined
to act, continuing his refusal for about four months, but afterwards,
and at the expiration of about six months, he decided to act, and did
so against the objection and protest of defendant, who in the mean
time had revoked his authority; (2) that the arbitrator, in making
his award, did not include, but on the contrary omitted, a part of the
land included in the agreement.
_ McNair at Gttfillan, for complainant.
Geo. B. Young, for defendant.
MCCRARY, J. We will Hrst consider the question whether the
powers of the arbitrator had ceased prior to the time when he un-
dertook to act. The agreement is silent as to the time within which
the award was to be made. In such a case the arbitrator must act
within a reasonable time. What is a reasonable time must be de- V
termined in each case upon its own peculiar facts and circumstances.
If the property to be sold is situated in or near a growing and pros-
perous city, and in a place where the value of real estate may be
expected to increase rapidly, it would be fair to presume that the par-
ties contemplated promptness. A delay in fixing the price for a
period of five or six months, under such circumstances, would be un-
' reasonable, because the value of the property within that time would
be very materially changed. Much would depend, in such a case,
upon the question whether the agreement contemplates the Hxing of
the price according to the value at the date of the contract or at the
date of the award. If the former, then the seller would certainly be
· entitled to a prompt appraisement, and a delay of five or six months
would, as to him, be unreasonable, because it would require him to
sell at a price which might and probably would be much below the
value of the land at the time of the conveyance and at the time of
the payment of the purchase money.
The contract in the present case is silent as to the question
whether the value at date of contract or at date of award shall con-
stitute the price to be paid for the land; but the arbitrator evidently
_ considered it his duty to ascertain the value at the former period, and
to fix the price accordingly, as he expressly states in his award that
he fixes the value of the property at the time when the agreement
was entered into, which was the twenty·first day of April, 1879,
while the award is dated October 1, 1879. The delay was for more
than five months, and the arbitrator acted in the end against the pro-