In the absence of a provision in the submission or in the controlling statute to the contrary, the action of the arbitrators must be unanimous if the arbitration involves a matter of private interest.1 In matters of public interest, however,2 the decision of a majority of the arbitrators is sufficient. If a city exercises its option to buy waterworks at a valuation to be determined by three appraisers, one selected by each of the parties, and the third selected by the two thus selected, the transaction is a matter of public rather than of private interest, and the action of a majority of the appraisers is therefore sufficient.3

The submission may, however, provide for a decision by a majority of the arbitrators.4 The original rights of parties who have entered into an arbitration agreement are not affected by a judgment setting aside an award because the arbitrators acted without giving the necessary notice to the parties.5 When the court, in setting aside an award, directs the case to be referred back to the arbitrators for another award, neither party can afterward withdraw from the arbitration without consent of the court.6 On setting aside an award made under a submission in pais, the court can not properly recommit the controversy to the same or any other arbitrators.7 Such a provision may be made by the express language of the submission8 or it may be implied, as from a provision for the choice of a third arbitrator or an umpire in case of disagreement between the two originally selected.9

1 England. United Kingdom Mutual Steamship Assurance Association v. Houston [1896], 1 Q. B. 567.

United States. Hobson v. McArthur, 41 U. S. (16 Pet.) 182, 10 L. ed. 930.

Massachusetts. Washburn v. White, 197 Mass. 540, 84 N. E. 106.

New York. Green v. Miller. 6 Johns. (N. Y.) 39, 5 Am. Dec. 184.

Ohio. Rhoades v. Baird, 16 O. S. 573.

Contra, in South Carolina, Lockart v. Kidd, 2 Mills Const. Rep. (S. Car.) 216; Greenville County v. Spartanburg County, 62 S. Car. 105, 40 S. E. 147 (obiter, as the matter in this case was one of public interest).

2Grindley v. Barker, 1 Bos. & P. 229; Columbia v. Cauca Co., 190 U. S. 524, 47 L. ed. 1159; Omaha v. Omaha Water Co., 218 U. S. 180, 54 L. ed. 991, 48 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1084; People v. Nichols, 52 N. Y. 478, 11 Am. Rep. 734; Wheeling Gas Co. v. Wheeling, 8 W. Va. 320.

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

4 England. Moseley v. Simpson, L. R. 16 Eq. 226.

United States. Hobson v. McArthur, 41 U. S. (16 Pet.) 182, 10 L. ed. 930.

Kansas. Fish v. Vermillion, 76 Kan. 348, 78 Pac. 811.

Massachusetts. Washburn v. White, 197 Mass. 540, 84 N. E. 106.

Pennsylvania. Ralston v. Ihmsen, 204 Pa. St. 588, 54 Atl. 365.

Wisconsin. Darge v. Horicon Iron Mfg. Co., 22 Wis. 691.

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

6 McCann v. Alaska Lumber Co., 71 Wash. 331, 43 L. R. A. (N.S.) 711, 128 Pac. 663.

7 Raleigh Coal & Coke Co. v. Mankin, - W. Va. - , 97 S. E. 299.

See also, State v. Tucker, - N. D. - , 166 N. W. 820.