oaacon a w. Moivre. sav. BANK ·v. Amamoan Moms. oo. 23
tion, and during said period made ‘Fnumerous" loans, a large number
of which were then outstanding, which the plaintiff was entitled to and
offered to collect as they became due, and " was and is entitled to receive
commi sions on-such loans until the same are paid oii'," on which ac-
count there is nowdue the plaintiff the sum of $25,713.72. V
» The secondcause of action consists of a claim for $779.29, laid out
and expended by the plaintiff in the business of such agency for the use
and benefit of the defendant; and the third one consists of a claim for
$20,000 damages, alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff byrea-
¢son¢‘0f the defendant’s revocation of a submission of the matters in dis-
pute under said agreement to arbitration. ’
‘ i On the argument of the demurrer, it was admitted that it was not well
taken, as to the third cause of action. · T
- Either party may revoke a submission to arbitration at any time be-
fore an award where the submission is not made a rule of court, or other-
wise regulated by statute. And the remedy of the other party is an ac-
tion on the agreement to submit, to recover the damages, if any, caused
by such revocation. Allen v. Watson, 16 Johns. 205; Jones v. ‘H¢rrria,
59 Miss. 214. i · · T
· Of the gross amount of damages claimed on this account, only $1,529
is itemized in the bill of particulars tiled with the complaint,-$1,000 of
which is for “attorney fees."· But however improbable it may be that
this amount of damage, or any considerable portion thereof, could have
·been caused=by this revocation, the defense to the claim must be made
by answer, and not demurrer. The second cause of action, as shown by
the billof particulars, consists of sundry items of expense incurred by
the/plaintitfin making and enforcing the payment of loans, and the pay-
ment of taxes thereon, as provided in the agreement, except two, amount-
ing to•$38`.56, for taxes paid on land. Underthe agreement, the plain-
tiff, in consideration of the commission itreceived, was bound for all
these expenses except those incurred in the payment of taxes on land.
The demurrer to this cause of action is sustainedexcept as to these two
items of taxes. i l ° i
The Hrst cause, as I apprehend it, consists of sundry items of annual
commissions on loans which the plaintiff made prior to the termination
of iits agency, on September 15, 1887, and which it alleges it would be
entitled to retain and receive out of the collections of interest due and to r
become due thereon until they were fully paid and discharged. ’
The demurrer to this cause of action assumes that by the terms of the
contract between the parties, when the agency is terminated by either of
them, it is terminated in toto, and that the plaintiffs right to collect the
loans of the defendant, and have or retain a commission therefor, is then
at an end. The lplaintitl',· however, contends that the termination of the
· agency under the contract only applies to future business or loans, and
that, as toloans then made and outstanding, the plaintiif is entitled to the
management and control of the same, and to receive and have compen-
sation therefor, as though the notice to terminate had not been given.
It is not alleged in the complaint which party to the contractgave