The parties to the submission have a right to be present at the hearings of the arbitrators at which evidence is offered which may affect the award.1 At the same time an award otherwise valid can not be attacked on the ground that immaterial evidence was submitted by one party to the arbitrators in the absence of the other, and without notice to him.2 The fact that an award was rendered before one party was given an opportunity to submit his evidence, is a defense to an action at law on such award.3

The submission, when taken in connection with the surrounding facts and circumstances, may show, however, that the arbitrators are to render their award upon facts known to them or to be discovered by them. In such cases it is not necessary that the arbitrator should grant hearings at which the parties are to offer evidence, and the award can not be attacked for failure to hold such hearings.4 This intention may be indicated by the express language of the submission,5 or it may be indicated by the fact that the matter in dispute involves expert knowledge and that the arbitrators are selected for such expert knowledge.6 The fact that arbitrators or appraisers who are to determine the value of a public utility, examined the books of such public utility without the consent of the adversary party and in the absence of its representatives, does not render the award invalid.7 If the parties began the introduction of their evidence under a mistake as to which contract controlled, and subsequently they sent the true contract to the arbitrators, together with other evidence, the fact that the arbitrators refused to give another hearing does not render the award invalid.8 If the parties fail to offer evidence upon a question submitted to the arbitrators, they can not subsequently complain because the arbitrators failed to determine such question.9

1 England. Lonsdale v. Littledale. 2 Ves. Jr. 451.

United States. Lutz v. Linthicum, 33 U. S. (8 Pet.) 165, 8 L. ed. 904.

Kentucky. Jones v. Northern Assurance Co., 182 Ky. 701, 207 S. W. 459.

Maine. Small v. Trickey, 41 Me. 507, 66 Am. Dec. 255.

North Carolina. Bray v. Staples, 149 N. Car. 89, 19 L. R. A. (N.S.) 696, 62 S. E. 780.

2 Whitney Co. v. Church, 91 Conn. 684, 101 Atl. 329.

3Meloy v. Imperial Land Co., 163 Cal. 99, 124 Pac. 712.

4 Bangor Savings Bank v. Niagara Fire Ins. Co., 85 Me. 68, 35 Am. St. Rep. 341, 20 L. R. A. 650, 26 Atl. 991; Hamilton v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 106 Mass. 395; Ormsby v. Bakewell, 7 Ohio, 98; Canfield v. Watertown Fire Ins. Co., 55 Wis. 419, 13 N. W. 252; Eau Claire v. Eau Claire Water Co., 137 Wis. 517, 119 N. W. 555.

5 Hamilton v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 106 Mass. 395; Canfield v. Watertown Fire Ins. Co., 55 Wis. 419, 13 N. W. 252.

6 Bangor Savings Bank v. Niagara Fire Ins. Co., 85 Me. 68, 35 Am. St. Rep. 341, 20 L. R. A. 650, 26 Atl. 991; Ormsby v. Bakewell, 7 Ohio, 98; Eau Claire v. Eau Claire Water Co., 137 Wis. 517, 119 N. W. 555.

7 Omaha v. Omaha Water Co., 218 U. S. 180, 54 L. ed. 991, 48 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1084.