—
Arbitration.
448 Sect.
1.
The Submission,
One stamp only required,
Alterations.
stamped with an agreement stamp
of sixpence, unless the subject-
matter of the submission is not of the value of five pounds, in which case no stamp is necessary (^). Only one stamp is required, although the submission may cornprise a number of separate causes of action by or against a number of different persons (2/). Any alteration or amendment of a submission, whether indorsed on the original submission or written on a separate document, must be stamped {z) .
Sub-Sect. Either party may revoke oral sub-
Revocation.
9.
950. At common law a party to a submission might, at any time before the award was made, revoke the authority of the arbitrator {a), and so render the proceedings on the reference abortive for an award made by an arbitrator after revocation of his authority is a mere nullity (6). The power of revocation existed notwithstanding that the authority of the arbitrator was expressed to be irrevocable, because an arbitrator is in contemplation of law merely an agent appointed by the parties to decide the matter in dispute between them, and his authority is therefore revocable by either of his principals (c). The party who revoked thereby rendered himself liable to an or action for damages for breach of his agreement to refer {d) where, as was in former times commonly the case, the submission to arbitration was by mutual bonds in a certain sum conditioned to be void on performance of the arbitrator's award, he was liable Where the submission had to an action in debt on the bond {e) been made a rule of Court, the party who revoked was guilty of contempt of court, and was liable to attachment (/).
Liability of
party revoking.
.
{x)
stamp
Act, 1891 (54
An adhesive stamp may
&
00 Yict.
39), ss. 1, 22; Sched.
c.
I.,
Agreement."
be used.
As to stamp where the value of the subject-matter of the reference is uncertain, see Lloiid v. Martsel (1850), 19 L. J. (q. b.) 192. [y) Goodson v. Forhes (1815), 6 Taunt. 171. (z) Stephens v. Lowe (1832), 9 Bing. 32. Hide v. Petit (1671), 1 Ch. Cas. (a) Vynior's Case (1610), 8 Co. Eep. 81 b Green v. Pole (1830), 6 Bing. 443 Mills v. Bayleij (1863), 2 H. & 0. 36 ; 185 Thomson v. Anderson (1870), L. E. 9 Eq. 523 Re Rouse and Meier (1871), L. R. Re Mitchell and Governor of Ceylon (1888), 21 Q. B. D. 6 C. P. 212, at p. 217 See also Claphamr. Higham (1822), 1 Bing. 87. 408. Gratrix (1806), 7 East, 608; Fraser v. Ehrensperger (1883), (&) Milne v. 12 Q. B. D. 310. And see King v. Josejyh (1814), 5 Taunt. 452 Aston v. George Randell v. Thompson (1876), 1 B. D. 748 Deutsche (1819), 2 B. & Aid. 395 Eor forms of Springstoff Actien-Gesellschaft v. Briscoe (1887), 20 Q. B. D. 177. revocation, see Encyclopaedia of Eorms, Vol. II., pp. 133, 134. (c) See Vynior's Case and the other cases cited above. The authority given to an agent is, generally speaking, revocable {Venning v. Bray (1862), 2 B. &S. 502). As to the cases in which such an authority is irrevocable, see Clerk v. Laurie (1857), 2 H. & N. 199, at p. 203; CarmichaeVs Case, [1896] 2 Ch. at p. 648. See also Tayler v. Marling (1840), 2 Man. & G. 55, where it was held that in the peculiar circumstances the arbitrator's authority was coupled with an interest, and was therefore irrevocable. See, generally, title Agency, p. 230, ante. {d) Neiugate Y. Begelder (1667), 2 Keb. 10, 20, 24; Charnley v. Winstanley Shee v. Coxon (1830), 10 B. & C. 483, (1804), 5 East, 266 (e) HillY. Langley (1670), 1 Yent. 50 Warhurton v. Storr (1825), 4 B. & C. 103. (/) Re Rouse and Meier, supra, at pp. 217, 218 Green v. Pole, supra ; Milne V. Gratrix, supra.
a
