Farmer v. Town of Wilson

*778 BbogdeN, J. What are tbe legal tests for determining whether an arbitration and award estops the parties thereto? All courts agree that the submission to an award is the foundation upon which the interpretation and validity of the arbitration and award is built. This prevailing idea was expressed by this Court in Geiger v. Caldwell, 184 N. C., 387, 114 S. E., 497, in these words: “Turning to the authorities, we find it settled that the submission furnishes the source and prescribes the limits of the arbitrators’ authority, without regard to the form of the submission. The award, both in substance and in form, must conform to the submission, and the arbitrators are inflexibly limited to a decision of the particular matters referred to them. . . . A submission is in itself a contract, or agreement, or so far partakes of its nature as to be substantially within the principle applicable to contracts as £the basis of the arbitration and award is the submission.’ ” Millsaps v. Estes, 137 N. C., 536, 50 S. E., 227; Williams v. Mfg. Co., 153 N. C., 7, 68 S. E., 902; Coe v. Loan Co., 197 N. C., 689, 150 S. E., 334; Transportation Co. v. Stearns, 195 N. C., 720, 143 S. E., 473. The submission agreement authorizes the arbitrators after hearing the evidence, making surveys and inspecting the premises, to award damages, if any, past, present and future. The plaintiff does not contend that the arbitrators exceeded their authority, but he constructs his case upon the following words in the report of the arbitrators: “that the raising of said dam has caused damage to certain properties.” The words: “has caused damage” are interpreted by the plaintiff as a declaration that only past damages were considered or awarded, and therefore the right to future damages was preserved. It must be observed, however, that the words following the language relied upon by .the plaintiff are as follows: “And we do award to the parties listed below damages as follows.” The award must be interpreted in the light of the submission, and when so interpreted there is nothing to indicate that the element of future or prospective damages was omitted or excluded. Manifestly, the record discloses a valid submission, which in definite terms, authorized the arbitrators to hear, consider and award. The award does not exceed the power granted, or clearly exclude any material item in controversy. Nor is there any suggestion of fraud, mistake, 'duress, or other impeaching circumstance. Consequently the judgment is Affirmed.