Pratt v. Connor

McFaRLAND, J.

This is an appeal by Delos Pratt from an order of the superior court denying his motion to modify, and also to vacate a certain award of arbitrators.

The appellant Pratt and the respondent Connor,by an instrument in writing in due form and properly executed, submitted to three named arbitrators certain controversies pending between ■them -concerning the amount due on a certain promissory note tnade by Connor to Pratt, and -also concerning moneys claimed to he due from Pratt to Connor, arising out of transactions about certain lots of land—Hos. 14 and 15—in Eden Park tract, Alameda county. It was stipulated in the written submission that the award should be final, and should be entered as an order of court in the superior court of said county. In due time the arbitrators, having qualified as required by the code and having heard the ease as presented by the parties, made their written award, which was that there was due Connor on the transactions about the lots three hundred and three dollars and seventy-nine cents, and that there was due Pratt balance of principal and interest on the note two hundred and twenty-three dollars and forty-five cents, and that the balance due Connor was eighty dollars and thirty-four cents.

[281]

The transcript on appeal contains merely the submission to arbitration, the award, the motion to modify and vacate, the order denying the motion, the notice of appeal, and an affidavit of appellant, in which he sets forth -certain alleged errors, together with a statement of some alleged facts upon which he based his motion. It is evident, however, that an

ex parte

affidavit cannot take the place of a bill of exceptions or settlement of a statement of the case. If alleged errors committed by arbitrators on the hearing of matters submitted to them can be reviewed at all, in the same general way in which alleged errors of a court committed during a trial before it can be reviewed—which is doubtful (see

Russell v. Seery,

52 Kan. 736;

Muldrow v. Norris,

2 Cal. 77; 56 Am. Dec. 313;

Tyson v. Wells,