10 momma nmronrnn.
also lies to compel the execution of a deed of land ascertained by an award
of arbitrators appointed to settle the boundary line between the lands of the
parties; I and, generally, equity may compel the specific performance of
awards concerning real estate, or for the purchase and sale thereof, even
though it involves the enforcement of an award to pay money;2 and in any
proper case specific performance of an award will be decreed, although it be
by parol; 3 and although it award costs, which it is beyond the authority of
arbitrators to d0;* and the fact that the submission contains a clause by
which each party binds himself to the other in a sum certain, as a penalty,
in case he `refuse to abide by and perform the award, does not deprive a
court of equity of the power to decree a specific performance of the award,
even though the party refusing to perform offers to pay the penalty agreed
upon; 5 and the court will enjoin proceedings at law until the award can be
specifically enforced.° Nor is the fact that the arbitrators have received in-
competent evidence an objection to their award being enforced.? Neither
is mere inadequacy of the price awarded to be paid for land a valid objection
to enforcing the award, the inadequacy not amounting to conclusive proof
of fraud} Fraud may also give a court of equity jurisdiction to enforce an
award. Thus, where an award provided that, in the event of the non-pay-
ment of a certain sum of money, judgment should be rendered against the
defendants in a suit then pending for its recovery, and by the connivance of
defendants, and a third party, who assumed to act as plaintiffs assignee, the
plaintiff was nonsuited without his knowledge or consent, so that the specific
remedy provided by the award was defeated, held, that these facts brought
the case within equitable cognizance, and that the direct payment of the
money might be ordered by the court.° The party seeking specific enforce-
ment must show a readiness to perform all the award, on his part.1°
Emceptionm In the following instances specific enforcement of the award
was refused: The parties to a submission bound themselves to perform the
award which certain arbitrators should “make and publish in writing under
their hands," concerning a boundary line in dispute. The arbitrators executed
in paper as an award, read it to the parties, and delivered copies to them,
with an oral statement of the actual decision, and that it was uncertain
whether the award expressed it, but that, if it did not, it should be afterwards
amended when the mistake should be ascertained. The chairman afterwards
learned that the line actually agreed upon was not correctly stated, and he
accordingly amended the original award, which he had retained, but which
was not again presented to the other arbitrators for signature, nor repub-
lished. Held, that equity would not enforce either the amended or original
award.!! Where it appeared that_ the arbitrators were deceived, and the award
was made clandestine1y by part of the arbitrators, without hearing each party,
the court set aside and refused to enforce the award}? W'here arbitrators to
determine the value of real estate omitted to take into consideration the
value of a water power, and appraised it at much less than the real value,
specific performance was refused.'3 So, also, in Parker v. Whitney,** wherein
the price was fixed considerably below the real value of the property. Specific
performance of an award for the payment of money merely, will not be com-
pelledli And where an award was that A. should pay B. a certain number of
dollars "in currency" and an additional sum "in gold," specific enforcement
*Caldwel1 v. Dickinson, 13 Gray, 365. ’Sto§y v. N. Gt W. R. Co. 24 Conn. 94.
¤ M. dz O. R. Co.v. Scruggs, 50 Miss. 284. i°Mc eill v. Magee, 5 Mason, 245.
¤ Marsh v. Packer, 20 Vt. 198. “.Caldwell v. Dickinson, 13 Gray, 365.
*Caldwe1l v. Dickinson, supra. ulves v. Medcalfe, 1 Atk. 64.
5 Whitney v. Stone, 23 Cal. 275. U Buys v. Eberhardt, 3 Mich. 524.
Uones v. Blalock, supra. 1* Turn. & R. 366.
gitgele v. T. & B. Ry. Co.,supra.. _ 44;Wood v. Shepard, 2 Pat. dt H. (Va.)