The submission is the charter of authority for the arbitrators,1 and the award must conform to the submission.2

8 Moseley v. Simpson, L. R. 16 Eq. 226; Washburn v. White, 197 Mass. 640, 84 N. E. 106; Ralston v. Ihmsen, 204 Pa. St. 588, 54 Atl. 365.

9Hobson v. McArthur, 41 U. S. (16 Pet.) 182, 10 L. ed. 930; Fish v. Vermillion, 70 Kan. 348, 78 Pac. 811; Darge v. Horicon Iron Mfg. Co., 22 Wis. 691.

1 Blood v. Bates, 31 Vt. 147.

2 Lantry Contracting Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 102 Kan. 799, 172 Pac. 527.

See Sec. 2530, 2550.

3Olston v. Oregon Water Power Co., 52 Or. 343, 20 L. R. A. (N.S.) 915, 96 Pac. 1095 (obiter).

See also to the same effect:

England. Cummings v. Heard, L. R. A. Q. B. 669.

Florida. Ogden v. Baile, - Fla. - , 75 So. 794.

North Carolina. Williams v. Bran-ning Mfg. Co., 163 N. Car. 7, 138 Am. St. Rep. 637, 31 L. R. A. (N.S.) 679, 68 S. E. 902.

Ohio. Corrigan v. Rockefeller, 67 O. 8. 354, 66 N. E. 95.

Pennsylvania. Starr v. McNeal, 253 Pa. St. 98, 97 Atl. 943.

Wisconsin. Eau Claire v. Eau Claire Water Co., 137 Wis. 517, 119 N. W. 555.

See also, Sec. 2550.

1 Bailey v. Triplett, - W. Va. - , 98 S. E. 166.

2 England. Taylor v. Shuttleworth, 6 Bing. N. C. 277; Quebec Improvement Co. v. Quebec Bridge Co. [1908], A. C. 217.

United States. Colombia v. Cauca Co., 190 U. S. 524, 47 L. ed. 1159.

Illinois. Snead v. Merchants' Loan & Trust Co., 225 111. 442, 9 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1007, 80 N. E. 237.

Kansas. Swisher v. Dunn, 89 Kan. 412, 787, 45 L. R. A. (N.S.) 810, 813, 131 Pac. 571, 132 Pac. 832.

Massachusetts. Estes v. Mansfield, 88 Mass. (6 All.) 69.

West Virginia. Raleigh Coal & Coke Co. v. Mankin, - W. Va. - , 97 S. E. 299; Bailey v. Triplett, - W. Va. - , 98 S. E. 166.

Wisconsin. Donaldson v. Buhlman, 134 Wis. 117, 113 N. W. 638, 114 N. W. 431.

"The agreement of submission entered into by the parties is the authority for the arbitrators and the umpire to act. Without that, anything that they do is entirely without authority. It is their charter of authority, and can it be said that, where matters in dispute are submitted to them for determination, they have authority to decide that dispute in any manner which they see fit, in utter disregard of the provisions of the agreement of submission? Where the parties themselves agree upon the manner of the submission of the dispute, and upon what shall be considered by the arbitrators, and what shall be done by them in order to a settlement of the dispute, it is part of the agreement, and is as binding upon the arbitrators as any other part, and they have no authority to make an award in violation of, or not in accordance with, such stipulations. Such an award can not be binding upon the parties, and would be entirely beyond the authority given to the arbitrators." Bailey v. Triplett, - W. Va. - , 08 S. E. 166.

If the parties to the submission agree upon the method which is to be used for the purpose of ascertaining the fact in dispute, the arbitrators can not ignore such provision, and resort to a different method for ascertaining such fact.3 If the submission of a controversy over the value of timber requires the arbitrator to give an equal value to standing and lying timber, and to estimate the quantity thereof, the failure of the arbitrators to comply with the submission in those respects renders the award invalid.4 If the submission provides for the determination of the true meanings of plans and specifications, it does not authorize the arbitrator or appraiser to ignore the terms of the building contract, and to render his decision by including provisions not in the contract, and excluding provisions which are contained therein.5 If the submission of the partition of land provides that neither owner shall have an easement or right of way across the land allotted to the other if it is possible to avoid it, an award which grants a right of way which is not necessary, is invalid.6

3 Bailey v. Triplett, - W. Va. - , 98 S. E. 166.

"In Goff v. Goff, 78 W. Va. 423, 89 S. E. 9, which was a cause submitted to arbitration for the purpose of determining a disputed line, it was held that, where the agreement of submission provided that the arbitrators should determine the line by the deeds and other evidence deemed necessary to enable them to arrive at a just and fair settlement, they were not authorized to determine such dispute in such manner as they may deem just and fair, but that they must determine it in accordance with the title papers of the parties and the evidence submitted to them, as provided in the order of submission. Similar holdings are found in the cases of Mathews v. Miller, 25 W. Va. 817; Austin v. Clark, 8 W. Va. 236; Dunlap v. Campbell, 5 W. Va. 195, and Swan v. Deem, 4 W. Va. 368. We are clearly of the opinion that the agreement of the parties as to the methods to be pursued by the arbitrators and the umpire in locating the disputed line is as binding upon them in doing the work as any other part of the agreement, and that the parties could not be bound by any award not made in accordance therewith. There is no real dispute in this case but that the conclusion adopted by the judgment of the court is the only one which can be reached by following the directions given in the agreement of submission; but one of the arbitrators does not agree that that is the proper way to locate the disputed line, and declined to agree to it for that reason. This necessitated the appointment of the umpire. The umpire was likewise of the opinion that the agreement made by the parties as to how the line should be fixed and determined was not the proper way for deciding it, but he, as before stated, in addition to finding this, also found as an alternative award that, if the agreement in this particular was binding upon the arbitrators, then the line finally esta-blished by the circuit court of Mineral county is the true division line. Much evidence was taken tending to show that the other line is the correct one. This evidence was all improper and immaterial. There is no showing that any fraud was practiced upon either of the parties in entering into the agreement to submit the question to arbitrators. They were anxious to get the line in dispute between them settled, and without knowing just where the same would run on the ground they, from the title papers and the information they possessed, freely and fairly entered into the agreement. The policy of the law is to settle disputes by arbitration, and when contending parties submit a matter of this character, or of any other character, to arbitrators for the purpose of determining their differences, and agree upon the method to be pursued by such arbitrators, and there is no fraud or mistake in the making of such agreement, an award made thereunder will be final and binding upon the parties. On the other hand, an award made in disregard of the agreement entered into, even though it may be the opinion of the arbitrators that such is the correct solution of the matters submitted to them, will be set aside as having no authority for its basis." Bailey v. Triplett, - W. Va. - , 98 S. E. 166.

The failure of the arbitrators to comply with the terms of the submission, renders the whole award invalid, if it is an entire award, and not merely that particular part thereof which is at variance with the submission.7 If the award is so made that the various items are severable, the valid items may be enforced, although the excessive items are rejected; 8 and an award for a gross sum may be severed if it shows on its face the items of which it is made up.9

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

5Snead v. Merchants' Loan & Trust Co., 225 111. 442, 9 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1007, 80 N. E. 237.

6Frankfurth v. Rteinmeyer. 113 Wis. 195, 89 N. W. 148.

7 England. Skipworth v. Skipworth, 9 Beav. 135; Quebec Improvement Co. v. Quebec Bridge & Ry. Co. [1908], A. C. 217.

United States. DeGroot v. United States. 72 U. S. (5 Wall.) 419, 18 L. ed. 700.

Illinois. Sherfy v. Graham, 72 111. 158; Alfred v. Kankakee & S. W. R. Co., 92 111. 609; Sneed v. Merchants' Loan & Trust Co., 225 111. 442, 9 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1007, 80 N. E. 237.

Kansas. Swisher v. Dunn, 89 Kan. 412, 787, 45 L. R. A. (N.S.) 810, 813, 131 Pac. 571, 132 Pac. 832.

Massachusetts. Estes v. Mansfield, 88 Mass. (6 All.) 69.

New Hampshire. Thrasher v. Haynes, 2 N. H. 429.

West Virginia. Raleigh Coal & Coke Co. v. Mankin, - W. Va. - , 97 S. E. 299; Bailey v. Triplett, - W. Va. - , 96 S. E. 166.

If, however, the parties to the submission have not offered evidence on one or more of the questions, included in the submission, the fact that the arbitrators do not determine such questions does not render the award invalid.10

A party to a submission, who has waived the failure of the arbitrators to conform to the terms of the submission,11 as by an admission of record,12 can not thereafter attack the award because of such variance between the award and the submission.