In the absence of statute no particular form of submission is necessary if no particular form would have been necessary to any other contract dealing with the subject-matter in question.1 If an oral contract with reference to the subject-matter would have been enforceable, an oral submission is sufficient.2 A submission under seal is not necessary,3 except in cases in which a sealed contract would be necessary because of the nature of the subject,4 or because of the fact that the original liability arose out of a sealed contract.5

An oral submission of a controversy, concerning the title of land, is unenforceable by reason of the Statute of Frauds.6

In the absence of statute, a submission to arbitration can not be made a rule of court;7 but under a number of statutes provision is made for making such submission a rule of court if the parties so agree.8

1 England. Cooth v. Jackson, 6 Ves. Jr. 12.

Alabama. Waldon v. McKinnon, 157 Ala. 291, 22 L. R. A. (N.S.) 716, 47 So. 874.

Connecticut. White v. Fox, 29 Conn. 570.

Michigan. Cady v. Walker, 62 Mich. 157, 4 Am. St. Rep. 834, 28 N. W. 805.

New Mexico. Moore v. Collins, 24 N. M. 235, 173 Pac. 547.

West Virginia. Billmyer v. Hamburg-Bremen Fire Ins. Co., 57 W. Va 42, 49 S. E. 901.

Wisconsin. Winnie v. Elderkin, 2 Pinn. (Wirt.) 248, 52 Am. Dec. 159.

2 England. Cooth v. Jackson, 6 Ves. Jr. 12.

Alabama. Waldon v. McKinnon. 157 Ala. 291. 22 L. R. A. (N.S.) 716. 47 So. 874.

Illinois. Smith v. Douplas, 16 111. 34.

Michigan. Cady v. Walker. 62 Mich. 157, 4 Am. St. Rep. 834, 28 N. W. 805.

New Mexico. Moore v. Collins, 24 N. M. 235, 173 Pac. 547.

West Virginia. Billmyer v. Hamburg-Bremen Fire Ins. Co., 57 W. Va. 42, 49 S. E. 901.

Wisconsin. Winnie v. Elderkin, 2 Pinn. (Wis.) 248, 52 Am. Dec. 159.

3 White v. Fox, 29 Conn. 570.

4 See Sec. 1156 et seq.

5 See Sec. 1172 and 2473 et seq.

6 Byrd v. Oldem, 9 Ala. 755; Brown v. Mize, 119 Ala. 10, 24 So. 453; Wal-den v. McKinnon, 157 Ala. 291, 22 L. R. A. (N.S.) 716, 47 So. 874; Fort v. Allen, 110 N. Car. 183, 14 S. E. 685.

If the parties act on the award and build fences in accordance therewith, they are estopped to deny the validity of the oral submission. Shaw v. State, 125 Ala. 80. 28 So. 390.

7 Nichols v. Chalie, 14 Ves. Jr. 265.

8 Ryan v. Daupherty, 30 Cal. 219; Minneapolis & St. Louis Ry. Co. v. Cooper, 59 Minn. 290, 61 N. W. 143.

A submission at common law need not be acknowledged.9 Under many statutes acknowledgment is necessary.to a statutory submission,10 but if such acknowledgment is omitted, the submission will be good as a common-law submission.11