An award need not be made in any specific form; and it may even be made orally,1 unless the terms of submission require a written award,2 or the statute which controls specifically requires a written award,3 or the arbitration deals with a subject-matter,4 such as land,5 which, under the Statute of Frauds, must be proved by written evidence.

If the award is in writing, and signed by the arbitrators, and the validity of the award is conceded, oral evidence can not be received to show what was included by the arbitration proceedings, and by the award,8 especially if the subject-matter involves realty or some interest therein.7

If no specific form of the award is required, it is, of course, not necessary that the award should be signed. If the submission provides that the award must be signed, such formality is, of course, necessary.8 It has even been held that the fact that the submission requires the award to be in writing, shows that the award must be signed.9 While it is quite likely that the submission taken as a whole may show in such cases that the parties intend to insist upon the signature of the arbitrators, it would seem dangerous to lay down an arbitrary rule to the effect that a provision in the submission for a written award, necessarily requires it to be signed. If a majority of the appraisers can render the award, it is not necessary that all should sign the award.10 It is said that the award must show on its face that the arbitrators had been unable to agree in order to justify the court in upholding an award which is signed by less than all;11 and that the fact that the arbitrators or appraisers were appointed with power to select a third arbitrator to settle differences between them, and the fact that the award was signed by such third arbitrator and by one of the two original arbitrators, does not show that a matter of difference had arisen between them.12

8 Lutz v. Linthicum, 33 U. S. (8 Pet.) 165, 8 L. ed. 904; Pigott-Healy Const. Co. v. H. A. Jones Real Estate Co., 201 Mich. 102. 166 N. W. 852; Eureka Pipe Line Co. v. Rimms, 62 W. Va. 628, 59 S. E. 618; Bancroft v. Grover, 23 Wis. 463, 99 Am. Dec. 195.

9 Pigott-Healy Const. Co. v. H. A. Jones Real Estate Co.. 201 Mich. 102, 166 N. W. 852.

10 Bancroft v. Grover. 23 Wis. 463, 99 Am. Dec. 195.

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

1 Cocks v. Macclefteld, Dyer, 218b; Lilley v. Tuttle, 52 Colo. 121, 117 Pac. 896; Moore v. Collins, 24 N. M. 235, 173 Pac. 547; Deal v. Thompson, 51 Okla. 256, 151 Pac. 856. '

2 Thompson v. Mitchell, 35 Me. 281.

3 Darling v. Darling, 16 Wis. 644. 4Philbrick v. Preble, 18 Me. 255, 36

Am. Dec. 718.

5Philbrick v. Preble, 18 Me. 255. 36 Am. Dec. 718.

6 Cox v. Heuseman. - Va. - , 97 S. E. 778.

7 Cox v. Heuseman, - Va. - , 97 S. E. 778.