1. ARBITRATION AND AWARD — SUBMISSION—CONSTRUCTION—UMPIRE.

Tlie agreement between insurer and insured to submit to arbitration the amount of damage suffered by lire provided that each party should ap-poir.t an arbitrator, by whom the loss should be “estimated and appraised in detail, together with a third xierson to be selected by them, who shall .act as an umpire to decide between them in matters of difference only; and tlie said three persons, or any two of them, shall a true return and award make,’ etc. Held, that such third person was constituted an umpire, and not a third arbitrator to act with the other two in making the ostiirates; and this though his decision is not', under the terms of the instrument, to be binding, unless concurred in by one. of them. 44 Fed. Rei>. 151, affirmed.

2. Same — Procedure of Umpire.

On a bill by the insurer to set aside the award it was shown that the two arbitrators examined each 'item of stock of goods in question, and each stated his estimate of the damage suffered by it, without discussion, or endeavor to reconcile conflicting estimates; that the umpire was present, and examined some few articles, tmt refused to decide any differences appealed to him at the time, staling that he would settle them when appraisement was ended; that one arbitrator fixed tlie damage at $5,000, the other at over $115,000; that the umpire then took their inventories, having made few memoranda himself, locked himself in a room with several clerks, and after three days made an award of $60,000, which one of the arbitrators concurred in. Held that, in view of the fact that the submission constituted him au umiiire, his mode of making his award was not such as to invalidate it, and no ground is shown for setting it aside.

3. Same — Excessive Award.

The court cannot consider the objection that the award was excessive, in the absence of a showing of corruption or partiality on the part of the arbitrators, or of fraud in the oxiposite party.

4. Same — Undue Influence.

The fact that the umpire and the arbitrator appointed by tlie insured partook of the hospitality of the insured while the umpire was making up his award cannot he urged, in argument on appeal, as a ground for ini alidating the award, where it was not so set forth in the bill, and complainants did not amend so as to avail themselves of it after the fact was brought out in evidence.

5. Same — Parties—Jurisdictional Amount.

All the insurers of the property damaged joined in the submission, and afterwards joined in the bill to sot a^ide the award. As the proportional liability of some of them, under the award, was less than $2,000, the court, dismissed the bill'as to them. Held, that this was error, for the controversy was single, the amount in controversy being the amount of the award.