There are certain words and phrases often used in awards, which seem to have acquired from practice a legal signification. Thus, "costs" will mean only the legal costs of court; and even "charges and expenses" mean no more, unless more be specially indicated. (w) Such at least is the English authority; but it might, perhaps, be expected, that the courts of this country would execute the intention of the parties, and construe such very general words as these accordingly. So "releases" mean to the time of the submission, and have been so * construed even when the words used were "of all claims to the time of the award;" for the arbitrators had no authority to go beyond this limit. (x) And if by an award money is to be paid in satis(t) Alder v. Savill, 5 Taunt 454; Solomons v. M'Kinstry, 13 Johns. 27.

(u) Knight v. Burton, 1 Salk. 75; 6 Mod. 231; Middleton v. Weeks, Cro. Jac. 200; Vanvivee v. Vanvivee, Cro. Eliz. 177; Webb v. Ingram, Cro. Jac. 664; Lewis v. Burgess, 5 Gill, 129; Roberts v. Mariett, 2 Saund. 188; Cable v. Rogers, 3 Bulstr. 311; Ward v. Uncorn, Cro. Car. 216; Bussfield v. Bussfield, Cro. Jac. 677.

(v) Ravee v. Farmer, 4T.R. 146; Golightly v. Jellicoe. id. 147, n.; Thorpe v. Cooper, 6 Bing. 129; Seldon v. Tutop, 6 T. R. 607; Martin v. Thornton, 4 Esp. 180. But see Jones v. Bennett, 1 Bro. P. C. 411; Shelling v. Farmer, 1 Stra. 646; Smith v. Johnson, 16 East, 213; Dunn v. Murray, 9 B. & C. 780.

(vv) Davis v. Cilley, 44 N. H. 448. See Beach v. Cooke, 28 N. T. 606.

(vw) Ladd v. Lord, 36 Vt. 194.

(w) Fox v. Smith, 2 Wilson, 267. And an award of costs generally, is understood to be costs to be taxed by the proper officer. See Dudley v. Nettlefold, 1 Stra. 737. An award that the costs be paid immediately by one party, means that they are payable upon notice to such party. Hoggins v. Gordon, 3 Q. B. 466; Wright v. Smith, 19 Vt. 110; Safford v. Stevens, 2 Wend. 158; Barnes v. Parker, 8 Met. 134. In Morrison v. Buchanans, 32 Vt. 289, held, that an arbitrator has no power to award costs of arbitration, except when it is expressly given him by the submission.

(x) Making v. Welstrop, Freem. 462; faction of a debt, this implies an award of a release on the other side, and makes this a condition to the payment. (y)

There is no special form of an award necessary in this country. (z) If the submission requires that it should be sealed, it must be so. (a) And if the submission was made under a statute, or under a rule of court, the requirements of the statute or the rules should be followed. But even here mere formal inaccuracies would seldom be permitted to vitiate the award. If the submission contains other directions or conditions, as that it should be delivered to the parties in writing, or to each of the parties, such directions must be substantially followed. Thus, in the latter case, it has been held, that it is not enough that a copy be delivered to one of the parties on each side, but each individual party must have one. (b)

* If an award be relied on in defence, the execution of the submission by each party, or the agreement and promise by each, if there was no submission in writing, must of course be proved, because the promise of the one party is the consideration for the promise of the others. (c)

White v. Holford, Stylet, 170; Hooper v. Pierce, 12 Mod. 116; Squire v. Grevell 6 Mod. 34; Abrahat v. Brandon, 10 Mod. 201; Herrick v. Herrick. 2 Keble, 431; Robinet v. Cobb, 3 Ley. 188; Nicholas v. Chapman, 8 id. 314.

(y) Mawe v. Samuel, 2 Rolle, 1; -v. Palmer, 12 Mod. 234; Brown v. Savage, Cas. temp. Finch, 184.

(z) It may be under seal, or in writing, or oral, if there is nothing in the submission to the contrary. Cable v. Rogers, 8 Bulstr. 311; Marsh v. Packer, 20 Vt. 198; Oates v. Bromell, Holt, 82.

(a) Stanton v. Henry, 11 Johns. 133; Rea v. Gibbons, 7S. & R. 204. And see French v. New, 20 Barb. 481.

(b) Huntgate v. Mease, Cro. Eliz. 886. Sed quaere. See Pratt v. Hackett, 6 Johns. 14. So, if by the submission, the award is to be indorsed on the submission, an award annexed to the submission by a wafer, is not valid. Montague v. Smith, 13 Mass. 306. And in Wade v. Dowling, 4 Ellis & B. 44, 28 Eng. L. A Eq. 104, it was held, that where the submission required that the award should be made by more than one arbitrator, the award must be the joint act of the arbitrators, and executed in the presence of each other. See also Henderson v. Buckley, 14 B. Mon. 294. But this seems too much like forsaking the substance, and clinging to the shadow. Perhaps the fact proved in that case, that the arbitrators by mistake annexed the wrong paper to the submission, was the real cause of the decision.

If the submission require the award to be attested by witnesses, such attestation is necessary, and the submission may be revoked at any time before such attestation, although the arbitrators have done all their duty. Bloomer v. Sherman, 6 Paige, 575; see Newman v. Labeaume, 9 Mo. 30. - If by the submission the award must be ready for delivery at a day certain, the award is complete, if it be in fact ready on that day, although not delivered, and although some accident should occur, by which it should never be delivered at all. Brown v. Vawser, 4 East, 584; and see Henfree v. Bromley, 6 East, 309; Macarthur v. Campbell, 6 B. & Ad. 518. In Brooke v. Mitchell, 6 M. & W. 473, where an order of reference required that the arbitrator should make and publish his award in writing, ready to be delivered to the parties, or such of them as should require the same, on or before a certain day, it was held, that the award was "published and ready to be delivered," within the meaning of the order, when it was executed by the arbitrator in the presence of and attested by witnesses, and that it could not be set aside, although the plaintiff died on the following day, and before he had notice that the award was ready. In Sellick v. Addams, 16 Johns. 197, it was held, that where sworn copies of an award are delivered to the parties by the arbitrators, and received without objection, this is a waiver of their right to re* ceive the original award.