In Re Abrams and Brennan

COOPER, J.

This is an appeal from an order denying the motion of appellant to set aside and modify the award of certain arbitrators in certain matters of dispute submitted to them. In this case objection was made that the award was void, and that the court had no jurisdiction because it was not made and filed in time. It is clear that arbitration, being a creature of the statute, by which jurisdiction is taken from the courts of the matters to be arbitrated and vested in designated persons regardless of their calling or learning in the law, must find support in and be governed by the limitations and restrictions named in the statute.

The statute gives the parties to certain disputes and controversies the right to submit them to a tribunal of their own selection and, by agreement, to vest such tribunal with many powers that, when properly exercised, become final. It maybe stipulated in the submission that it be entered as - an order of the superior court, and in such case it must be filed therein.. The .clerk of the court must thereupon enter certain enumerated matters in his register of actions, among which are-“the date of the submission, when filed, and the time limited by the submission, if any, within which the award must: be made.” (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1283.)

The agreement to submit in this case contained the provision: “And the parties hereto further agree that the award,, decision and judgment must be made in writing, signed by the arbitrators or a majority of them, and filed with the clerk of the said superior court within thirty days from and after the day when this agreement is filed with said clerk.” The

[239]

agreement was filed with, the clerk November 20, 1902, and the award filed December 22, 1902, more than thirty days after the making and filing of the agreement. It does not appear when the award was made, as it is not dated; but we must presume it was made when filed. We must therefore hold that after the expiration of the thirty days the arbitrators lost jurisdiction and the award was void.

There is an attempt made by respondent to show that the delay in filing the award was caused by appellant, but the affidavits filed by appellant are in conflict with those of respondent on this point, and we must hold the parties to their contract. No doubt but that they could have extended the time by a written contract, but this they did not do.