Erwin; Planters' & Mechanics' ....371 Bank of Dalton vs.......... F L 71 Lamberth; Ward et al. vs...................... Floyd et al; Mosely et al. vs......... 564 Lawson vs. Powell.. Force; Cone vs........................................................ 688 Lee vs. Lee.. 328 Lemon vs. Wright.. Ford vs. Buchanan...................... 356 Lillibridge vs. Ross.. Lipscomb et al.; Evans et al. vs... 586 Loyd; Collins vs.... 150 304 663 681 20 317 730 71 583 187 125 Loyd, Perryman & Mills vs. Hicks. 110 737 Lyons; Doyle vs.... 273 625 M 393 Macon & Western R. R. Co. vs. 331 435 McConnell... 133 Holland, Jackson, Cook & Co. vs.. 339 Morton; Sharman vs............ 31 331 278 145 140 Morris; Morton vs... 375 720 Morris et al.; Kelly & Mitchell vs. 62 Morton vs. Morris.... 378 The defendant accepted the trust for complainant of thirty negroes, by a deed from her father settling the negroes to her separate use for life, and at her death to her children. The husband of complainant afterwards sold and conveyed to defendant seven slaves, absolutely, at the price of $2,000. Defendant, also, advanced to one R. M. $3,100 and took his conveyance for fifteen other slaves-the fifteen had been the husband's, but had been sold as his property at Sheriff's Sale and bought by R. M. The defendant gave the husband a written agreement allowing him to take the twenty-two slaves and work them, paying to him interest on the amount the husband was due to him, stated at $5,800, and when that was paid off, principal and interest, he agreed to deed and settle said slaves as the husband should direct. After this, an account was taken between defe..dant and the husband, of additional advances, made by defendant for the husband, for the separate estate and pur chases made by him, and of such sums and means as the husband had turned over to him, and the hire of such of the negroes of the wife, as defendan. had employed up to that time, and took absolutely of the twenty-two slavest then increased to twenty-three, eleven of the negrocs, and allowed the husband credit for them at prices agreed upon, and left a balance still due to defendant of $3,698. Defendant consented that the husband might retain possession of the remaining thirteen and pay the $3,698 at stated times and in Wade vs. Powell. stated amounts, and if the husband made these payments, the negroes were in tha: case to be the property of complainant; if not paid, the money was to be made out of the remaining thirteen. Afterwards a new agreement was entered into with the complainant, in which the balance is stated to be $3,200, $500 of which was to be paid in January, 1852, the balance in five equal annual installments. If this amount was paid up promptly at the times stated, with the interest, defendant was to convey the thirteen negroes to the complainant, subject to the same trust as contained in her father's deed; if payment were not made, the agreement to be void, and defendant was to make the money out of the negroes. The defendant subsequently advanced for the use of the separate state of the complainant $1,012 and for the husband $100. No part of the $3,200, or $1,012, or $400 being paid to defendant, he commenced an action of trover for the thirteen negroes; also a separate action, astrustee. for those contained in the deed from complainant, to take them from the possession of the husband. The complainant filed a bill against defendant for account of the hire of some of the trust negroes defendant had in 1849 and 1850, that was included in the settlement with the husband in January. 1851; also for account of the hire of the twenty-two negroes included in the conveyance from her husband, and from Martin to defendant, also for all the assets that the husband had turned over, and for an account generally of his trust from his acceptance. The husband brought trover for the eleven negroes, taken by defendant in settlement in January, 1851. Some other suits. either directly or collaterally, were pending between the parties. The solicitors of the complainant, the husband, and the next friends of complainant in her bill, agreed in writing with the defendant for the purpose of putting an end to the litigation and making a final and full settlement of all matters in dispute between them, to refer them to two arbitrators named therein who were to select an umpire, and this agreement, or rule of submission so agreed on, was made the rule of the Court. In accordance with the agreement, the whole of the twenty-two negroes and increase. both those in the possession of defendant as well as those in the possession of complainant, were delivered to the arbitrators to dispose of according to the award. The arbitrators and umpire took a full account on both sides from the beginning, and for the balance found to be due to defendant, paid him off in negroes, at prices put upon them by the arbitrators; settled their own fees, &c. This award was made the judgment of the Court. Complainant filed a bill to review and reverse that award. Held 1. That a bill of review did not lie to correct the errors of this award or judg ment. 2. That the attorney and solicitors of complainant had power to make the reference under the sanction of the Court, without the consent of complainant. 3. It was not error in the arbitrators to settle the accounts between defendant and husband, especially as such settlement inured to the benefit of complainant. 4. That it was no error for the next friend to sign and agree to said submission, and that he did so only made it the more perfect. 5. In arbitrations, other than those provided for by the arbitration Act of 1856, |