Strong v. Willey. Same v. Same

Me. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court. These are bills of review to correct alleged errors of law apparent on the face of-, a decree. The two original suits were in reality but one. They were considered and decided together, and both are included in the same decree. They relate to controversies growing out of a single contract between the parties. ' The nature.of these controversies is fully disclosed in the pleadings.- The case of the appellee against the appellant .is so stated as to admit of alternative relief. The object of the appellee evidently was to have the amount due him ascertained, and to preserve his securities. His contract called for payment in a certain class of orders on the Board of Public Works of the District of Columbia; but if for.any cause he Gould not get valid orders, or if, by the wrongful acts of the appellant, the payment of orders actually drawn was refused when presented, compensation might be decreed to him in money, under the prayer for general relief. In the progress of the litigation the parties agreed to refer all the matters of difference included in their respective bills to the arbitrament of William B. Webb, whose decision was to be final and conclusive, and his award was to be made the..basis of the decree of the court. Pursuant to this agreement'the reference was formally ordered. The arbitrator, after hearing, decided that the sum of $15,413.21 was due thé appellee from the appellant. To this award the appellant filed in court certain exceptions. What these exceptions were does not appear from the record, but it does appear that they were overruled, and a decree entered against the appellant for the sum named to be collected by execution, as at law. It is now contended that this decree is erroneous, because, 1, it does not dispose of the issues raised by the pleadings ; and, 2, it is for a sum in excess of that claimed by the appellee in his original bill. In our opinion • neither of these objections is good. By decreeing the payment of money the *515 court has in effect 'found either that the appellant had no fund in the hands of the District authorities on which he could draw, or that the appellant, by. his improper interference to prevent the payment of the orders he drew, made himself liable personally- for money. It is not true that the amount of the decree is greater than the demand of the appellee in his original bill, if the orders theretofore issued to him were not paid. He expressly, averred in the original bill that there was due him $27,670 under the contract, if his orders were not paid, and in his answer to the bill of the appellant the amount is-stated to be $16,899.93. It was only in the event of his holding the orders and getting payment thereon that the balance was stated at a less sum. The reference of the matter in dispute to the arbitrator, coupled with the agreement that his award should be made the basis'; of a decree in the suits, is clearly a waiver of the objection that the remedy was at law and not in equity, if any such' -objection in fact existed, which we are by no means inclined to admit. The case is to be decided upon the face of the original record, and-not upon the averment of new facts in the bills' of review. Decrees affirmed.