(5) SUBMISSION TO BE MADE A RULE OF COURT.1 Form No. 2108. And it is further agreed that the submission may be made a rule of the Morgan Circuit Court at the instance of either the said John Doe or Richard Roe, his executors, or administrators, without any notice to the other of them. (6) PROVISION FOR FILING AWARD IN COURT, IN NEW HAMPSHIRE. Form No. 2109. (Pub. Stat. N. H., c. 247, § 2.) And the parties agree that the award of said referees or the major part of them, in writing, may be filed, with a motion for judgment thereon, in the supreme court for the county of Stafford, and, upon notice thereof to the adverse party, the said court may render final judgment thereon. 2 (7) COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT ON THE AWARD. Form No. 2110. And it is further agreed that the Circuit Court of the state of Iowa, in and for Clarke county, shall be authorized and empowered to render judgment upon the award or finding of the arbitrators, and for costs and all expenses of arbitration, etc., as fully and completely and with the same force and effect as if upon the verdict of a jury.1 Form No. 2111. And we do further agree that a judgment of any court of record competent to have jurisdiction of the subject-matter of said controversy may be rendered upon the award made pursuant to the submission, in pursuance of the statute in such case made and provided.1 (8) POWER TO COURT TO REFER BACK. Form No. 2112. And it is further agreed that in the event of any application to 1. This provision is important, for in several states it is necessary to render the submission a statutory submission. The California Code requires such a stipulation in the submission for entering the submission as a rule of court. It was accordingly held in Fairchild v. Doten, 42 Cal. 126, that the following provision in the submission was not a compliance with the provision in the code : “and it is hereby further mutually agreed between the parties hereto, that judgment in the District Court of the Ninth Judicial District of the state of California, in and for the County of Siskiyou, may be rendered upon the award to be made pursuant to this submission." 2. In Campbell v. Upton, 113 Mass. 68, a submission to arbitration under Gen. Stat., c. 147, § 2, provided that the award being made to the Superior Court "the judgment shall be final" instead of pursuing the statutory form of "the judgment thereon shall be final." It was held that the omission of the word "thereon" did not invalidate the submission. the said court upon the subject of this order to the reference or the award the court may, if it think fit, refer back to the said arbitrator (or to any other person whom the court shall appoint) the whole, or any part, of the matter of this order, upon such terms as the said court shall think proper. Form No. 2113. And it is further agreed that in the event of either of the parties, their executors, or administrators, being dissatisfied with the award, or disputing its validity and moving the court to set the same, or any part thereof, aside, or on any motion being made respecting the said award, the said court, whether the award be insufficient in law or not, shall have power, if it shall think fit, to remit the award, or the matters hereby referred, or any of them, from time to time, to the reconsideration and determination of the said arbitrator. (9) PROVISION for Reserving Law. Form No. 2114. And it is further agreed that all matters of law arising thereupon shall be reserved for the decision of the said court, and that the report of the said arbitrators setting forth the facts found by them shall have the same effect as a special verdict. (10) PARTIES TO PAY ARBITRATOR'S CHARGES. Form No. 2115. And the said parties jointly and severally agree to and with the said arbitrator, in consideration of his taking upon himself the burden of the reference, to pay to the said arbitrator his reasonable charges 1 for the arbitration and award. (11) PARTIES TO FORWARD, NOT PREVENT, AWARD. Form No. 2116. And that the parties respectively shall do all other acts necessary to enable the arbitrator to make a just award, and that neither of them shall wilfully and wrongly do or cause to be done any act to delay or prevent the arbitrator from making his award. (12) PARTIES TO ABIDE BY THE AWARD. Form No. 2117. And it is further agreed that the said parties, their executors and administrators, shall on their respective parts in all things stand to, obey, abide by, perform, fulfil, and keep the award so to be made and published as aforesaid. 1. In many states these charges are regulated by statute. (18) PENALTY FOR BREACH OF AGREEMENT. Form No. 2118. And for the due execution and observance of the agreement herein before contained on the part of the said John Doe, the said John Doe doth hereby bind himself, his heirs, executors, and administrators in the sum of five hundred dollars (add a similar agreement for the other party). k. The Conclusion. (1) OF A SUBMISSION BY SIMPLE AGREEMENT. Form No. 2119. In witness whereof the said parties have hereunto set their hands the day and year first above written. Witness, John Jones. (2) OF A SUBMISSION BY BOND. Form No. 2120. John Doe. Now the condition of this obligation is such that if the above bounden Richard Roe, his heirs, executors, and administrators, do and shall on his and their part and behalf in all things well and truly stand to, obey, abide by, and observe, perform, fulfil, and keep the award, order, arbitrament, final end, and determination of the said arbitrators respecting the matters referred (here state the formal requisites of award in the words to be found in the proper form, supra), then this obligation to be void, otherwise to remain in full force. Signed, sealed, and delivered in the presence of John Jones. Richard Roe. (SEAL) (3) OF A SUBMISSION BY Deed. Form No. 2121. Now this indenture witnesses that they, the said John Doe and Richard Roe, do, and each of them doth, each for himself, and for his several and respective heirs, executors, and administrators, covenant and agree with and for his heirs, executors, and administrators, respectively, to stand to, abide by, observe, and perform the award and determination of the said arbitrators of and concerning the premises aforesaid.1 In witness whereof the said parties hereto set their hands and seals 1. The conditions of the submission as to the formal requisites of the award, costs, etc., may be inserted either at this point or else made to precede this entire clause. the first day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and ninety-six. John Doe. (SEAL) Signed, sealed, and delivered in the presence of : John Jones. John Smith. (4) JUSTICE'S Certificate of ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF EXECUTION.1 Form No. 2122. State of Iowa, SS. On this first day of July, in the year 1896, before me personally appeared John Doe and Richard Roe, known to me (or proved to me on the oath of John Jones) to be the persons who are described in and who executed the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that they executed the same. Abraham Kent, Justice of the Peace. Form No. 2123. (Precedent in Callahan v. McAlexander, 1 Ala. 367.) State of Alabama, Morgan County. This day the above named Edmond T. McAlexander, and William Callahan, agent of Patrick O'Neal, appeared personally before me, and acknowledged the above instrument to be their free act. Given under my hand, this 30th January, 1839. William Morrow, Justice of the Peace. 3. The Complete Form. a. Of Submission by Simple Agreement. 2 Form No. 2124. Memorandum of an agreement made this first day of May, A.D. 1896, between John Doe, of Carrollton, in the county of Greene, and Richard Roe, of Marseilles, in the county of La Salle. 1. In some states the parties to a submission are required by statute to acknowledge its execution before a justice of the peace. In such cases the form given in the text would be indorsed on the instrument of submission. 2. Precedents of Submission by Simple Agreement-In Alabama.-Callahan v. McAlexander, 1 Ala. 366; Hubbert v. Collier, 6 Ala. 269; Jones v. Blalock, 31 Ala. 181; Tuskaloosa Bridge Co. v. Jemison, 33 Ala. 476; King v. Jemison, 33 Ala. 500; Yeatman v. Mattison, 59 Ala. 383. In California.-Blair v. Wallace, 21 Cal. 319; Jacob v. Ketcham, 37 Cal. 199; Fulmore v. McGeorge, 91 Cal. 614; Talmadge . Arrowhead Reservoir Co., 101 Cal. 368. In Connecticut.-Gaylord v. Gaylord, 4 Day (Conn.) 422; Brown v. Green, 7 Conn. 536; Ranney v. Edwards, 17 Conn. 310; Bennett v. Bennett, 25 Conn. 67; Waller v. Shannon, 44 Conn. 481. In the District of Columbia.-Sangster v. Quantrill, i D. C. 18; Swann v. Alexandria Canal Co., 1 D. C. 163. Whereas disputes and differences have arisen, and are still subsisting, between the above mentioned parties, it is hereby agreed by and between them to refer all disputes and matters in difference whatsoever between them to the award, order, and final determination of Jeremiah Mason, Esq., of Carrollton, attorney at law, so as the above mentioned arbitrator make and publish his award in writing, and signed by him, of and concerning the matters referred, ready to be delivered to the parties or to either of them; or if they or either of them shall be dead before the making of the award, to their respective personal representatives who shall require the same, on or before the first day of June next, or on or before any other day to which the arbitrator shall by any writing signed by him, indorsed on this submission, from time to time enlarge the time for making his award. And it is further agreed that the arbitrator, if he shall think it necessary; shall be at liberty, and is hereby authorized to appoint an accountant to assist him, at the expense of the said parties, who shall be liable to such accountant for his reasonable remuneration; and that as between the said parties the expense of such accountant shall be borne and paid in equal moieties by the said parties. In witness whereof the said parties have hereunto set their hands the day and year first above written. John Doe. Witness, John Jones. Richard Roe. In Georgia. - Merchants' Bank v. Taylor, 21 Ga. 335; Wellborn v. Rogers, 24 Ga. 564; Walker v. Walker, 28 Ga. 140; Wade v. Powell, 31 Ga. 4; Crane v. Barry, 47 Ga. 476; Cherry v. Smith, 51 Ga. 558. In Illinois.-Duncan v. Fletcher, I Ill. 323; McDonald v. Bacon, 4 Ill. 429; McDonald v. Arnout, 14 Ill. 58; Low v. Nolte, 15 Ill. 369; Farr v. Johnson, 25 Ill. 522; Hubbard v. Firman, 29 Ill. 91; Cook v. Schroeder, 55 Ill. 532; Hubbard v. Hubbard, 61 Ill. 229; Darst v. Collier, 86 Ill. 99; Alexander v. Cunningham, 111 Ill. 514. In Indiana.-Carson v. Earlywine, 14 Ind. 256; Hendrick v. Judy, 23 Ind. 549; Rice v. Loomis, 28 Ind. 400; Healy v. Isaacs, 73 Ind. 230; Bird v. Routh, 88 Ind. 48. In Iowa.-Sullivan v. Frink, 3 Iowa 66: Zook v. Spray, 38 Iowa 274; Richards v. Holt, 61 Iowa 530; Foust v. Hastings, 66 Iowa 523; Thornton v. McCormick, 75 Iowa 286. In Kansas.-Weir v. West, 27 Kan. 631. In Maine.-Smith v. Thorndike, 8 Me. 119; Norton v. Savage, 10 Me. 455; Chesley v. Welch, 21 Me. 50; Chapman v. Seccomb, 36 Me. 102; Hanson v. Webber, 40 Me. 194; Redington v. Frye, 43 Me. 579; Hersey v. Packard, In Maryland.-Maryland, etc., R. In Massachusetts.-Woods v. Rice, 4 Met. (Mass.) 482; Houston v. Pollard, 9 Met. (Mass.) 164; Carpenter v. Edwards, 10 Met. (Mass.) 200; Penniman v. Rodman, 13 Met. (Mass.) 382; Page v. Ranstead, ro Allen (Mass.) 296; Haven v. Winnisimmet Co., 11 Allen (Mass.) 378; Campbell v. Upton, 113 Mass. 68; Rollins v. Townsend, 118 Mass. 224. In Michigan.-Detroit v. Jackson, 1 Dougl. (Mich.) 107. In Missouri.-Cochran v. Bartle, 91 Mo. 642; State v. Lesueur, 103 Mc. 256. In Nebraska.-Murry v. Mills, I Neb. 456. In New Hampshire. Varney 7. Brewster, 14 N. H. 50; Goodall v. Cooley, 29 N. H. 49; Prescott v. Fellows, 41 N. H. 9; Weare v. Putnam, 56 N. H. 50. Jenkins, In New Jersey.—Knaus v. |