omosco, M. & ST. 1>. RY. oo. v. STEWART. 9
Hancock, supra; Wakqield v. Lfanclly Ry. at Dock Oo. 68 Eng. Ch.
11; Skipworth v. Skipworth, 9 Beav. 135. The fact that the arbi-
trator omitted from the appraisement a part of the property, may be
shown by evidence afiunde the award. Bean v. Farnam, 6 Pick. 269;
Hale v. Husc, 10 Gray, 99.
The other questions discussed by counsel need not be considered.
We deem it proper, however, to say that the proof does not, in our
judgment, sustain the charge of defendant that the arbitrator was i
guilty of improper conduct or of partiality. His errors were simply
errors of judgment, but they were nevertheless such as to preclude us
from decreeing a specific performance of the contract and award. It
is therefore ordered that the bill be dismissed.
NELSON, J., concurs. _
Specific Enforcement of Awards and Contracts to Arbitrate.
A party to an award has several remedies at his disposal in case the per-
son against whom the award is made refuses to abide by or to perform it. If
both parties are in court, the award may be made an order of court, and
performance may be compelled by the usual means resorted to by a court to
compel obedience to its orders. If the parties are not in court, an action for
damages will lie upon the award. In this note it is proposed to discuss the
equitable remedy of specific enforcement, and its application to awards and
arbitration contracts. .
1. AwAnns—GmmnAL RULE. A party is entitled to come into equity to B
compel the specific performance of an award whenever he cannot obtain, by
proceeding at law, all that was intended to be given him by the award. Inad-
equacy of the remedy at law is the basis of the jurisdiction in equity} This ·
basis is broad enough to warrant the specific enforcement of awards relating
to personalty, as_ well as of those relating to realty; for at law a party can
only get damages for the breach of an award, which may be a very inade-
quate remedy even where the award is of personalty; e. g., where a rare pie-
ture, or shares of stock in a private company, or a patent are awarded.
Damages in such case would be inadequate, because impossible of ascertain-
ment. What jury can estimate the value of a rare picture, or of a patent,
or of private stock? Here, therefore, as in an award of real property, is it
especially appropriate to apply the equitable remedy of specific enforcement.
Illustrations. A partner can, as against his copartner, enforce the spe-
cific performance of an award that the partnership stock on hand and Hccou nts
be equally divided? Especially will specific performance be decreed after
one party has partly performed the award. Thus, where the award was that
A. pay B. £900, and seal a release to B., B. to assign several securities he
had from A., and A. sold lands to raise the £900. expecting B. to receive it,
as he intended he would, and then tendered him the amount, together with
the release, the lord chancellor decreed specific performance by B., even
though the award was extrajudicial, and not strictly good in law! So, an
award relative to the partition of lands will be enforced! A bill in equity
'Jones v. Blalock, 31 Ala. 180. Viele v. T. dz B. Ry; Co. 21 Barb. 381;
’Kirksey V. Fike, 27 Ala. 383. Hall v. Hardy, 8 P. ms. 187.
°Norton v. Mascall, 2 Vern. 24. See, *Whitney v. Stone, 23 Cal. 275.
also, Cook v. Vick, 2 How. (Miss.) 882; v