Page:Halsbury Laws of England v1 1907.pdf/664

 —

Arbitration.

442

compelling him to do so or of otherwise supplying the vacancy, so it is impossible to proceed with the reference, nevertheless the Submission. agreement constitutes a valid submission within the meaning of the Arbitration Act, 1889 (q). Agreement to When in proceedings pending before the Court the parties agree be bound by to accept the judge's decision as final, it is said that they thereby judicial constitute the judge a quasi-arbitrator (?•) The effect of such an decision does not make agreement is that the decision of the judge is unappealable and judge an cannot be questioned in any way; but the judge is not thereby arbitrator really placed in the position of an arbitrator and his decision is not, and does not in any way resemble, an award. Sect.

].

The

that

.



Sub-Sect Capacity to

make

sub-

2.

Pai^ties.

943. Capacity to make a submission is co-extensive with capacity Every person capable of entering into a contract may to contract. be a party to a submission (s) conversely he who cannot contract cannot make a submission {t) and, in the case of persons whose capacity to contract is restricted, the power of making a submission is, in the same manner and to the same extent, limited. Thus married women, who were with few exceptions incapable at common law of making a contract, were also incapable of making a submission to arbitration but by virtue of the Married Women's Property Act, 1882, which enables every married woman to contract in respect of her separate estate, a married woman can now enter into a submission binding on her separate estate {u). With regard to infants, it would seem that a submission made by an infant could not be enforced against him during his infancy, and would be voidable by him on attaining his majority; but submissions by infants out of Court are very rare, the cases reported (x) being cases in which the reference was held pursuant to an order of



Married

women.



Infants.

the Court. Bankrupts.

Agents.

Partners.

There is no objection to a bankrupt making a submission any more than there is to his making any other agreement {y). An agent, who is authorised so to do, may enter into a submission on behalf of his principal {z). In the case of partners the cases decided before the Partnership Act, 1890, seem to show that one partner had no authority to bind the firm by entering into a submission (a). The matter is now Manchester Ship Canal Co, v. S. Pearson & So?i, Ltd., [1900] 2 Q. B. 606. Burgess v. Morton, [1896] A. C. 136 JRe Durham County Fermaneut Benefit Building Society, Ex parte Wilson (1871), 7 Ch. App. 45; Harrison v. Wright (1845), 13 M. & W. 816. Compare Elvin v. Drummond (1827), 4 Bing. 415 and Bustros v. White (1876), 1 Q. B. D. 423. (s) Com. Dig. Arbitration D 2. {t) Bac. Abr. tit. Arbitrament and Award C. (m) Conolan v. Leyland (1884), 27 Ch. D. 632. Dowse v. Goxe (1825), 3 (x) See Godfrey v. Wade (1822), 6 Moo. C. P. 488 Bing. 20 Biddell v. Dowse (1827), 6 B. & C. 255; Jones v. Powell (1838), 6 Dowl. 483; Proudfoot v. Boyle (1846), 15 M. & W. 198. See also title Inpants. See title Bankruptcy and {y) Re Milnes and Bobertson (1854), 15 C. B. 451. {q) (r)









Insolvency. (z) Goodson V. BrooTie (1815), 4 Camp. 163; and compare The Citij of Calcutta See title Agency, ante, (1898), 79 L. T. 517, and The Margery, [1902] P. 157. (a) See Strangford v. Green (1678), 2 Mod. Eep. 228 ; Stead v. Salt (1825), 3