The submission ordinarily provides either expressly or by fair implication that the proceedings before the arbitrators shall be such as to give to each party a fair opportunity for presenting his claims, and that the arbitrators will be fair and impartial.1 "Also, the law reads into the agreement a covenant to the effect that the proceeding shall be honest and fair; that the statement of the items of damages claimed shall be reasonably specific; that the evidence heard shall possess legal competency and some probative value; that claims made shall be legally competent, and that each party shall have a fair and honest hearing.,,2 An award may be set aside if it is shown that the arbitrators were biased or prejudiced.3 Such bias or prejudice may be shown affirmatively, or it may be inferred from the fact that the award is clearly shown to be grossly inadequate.4 It is not necessary to establish improper or corrupt motives in order to establish bias.5 The arbitrators must act in a quasi-judicial capacity, and must act fairly and impartially as between the parties. This is sometimes expressed by saying that they are agents of both parties, although it would be better to say that they are agents of neither, but the informal tribunal to decide between them. In any event, if one of the arbitrators misunderstands his true position, and assumes to act as the agent of one of the parties exclusively, such conduct shows bias or prejudice, even if he acts in this way because he believes that the duties of his position require such attitude on his part.6 Since the provision of arbitration is to substitute the judgment of the arbitrators for the judgment of the parties on the one hand, or for the judgment of the court or jury on the other, an award can not be attacked because the judgment of the arbitrators does not coincide with the judgment either of the parties or of the court or jury.7 As long as the proceedings of the arbitrators in rendering the award amount to a substantial performance of the terms of the submission, an honest error in judgement on their part does not render the award subject to attack.8 On the other hand, a mistake on the part of the arbitrators. which amounts to a non-performance of the terms of the submission, renders the award subject to attack.9 If the arbitrators misunderstand the questions submitted to them,10 as where they misunderstand the time as of which the value of the property is to be ascertained,11 the award is subject to attack. While some courts have advanced this theory that an attack upon an award for mistake can succeed only if the arbitrators admit such mistake,12 this rule is not entertained by modern authority: and such attack may be made if the mistake is established either by the admission of the arbitrators or by other evidence which clearly establishes the existence of a mistake of this sort.13 Since a submission is an agreement to submit to the honest judgment of impartial arbitrators, an award may be attacked successfully because of the fraud of the arbitrators in making the award.14 Since an award can not be attacked for a mere difference in judgment between the arbitrators and the complaining party or the court,15 such difference in judgment can not be treated as fraud.16 Accordingly, the fact that the arbitrators did not give full and complete investigation to every feature of the dispute, is not of itself sufficient to establish fraud.17

Mass. 517, 78 N. E. 547; Dickie Mfg. Co. v. Sound Construction & Engineering Co., 92 Wash. 316, 150 Pac. 129.

2 Martin v. Williams, 13 Johns. (N. Y.) 264.

3Hodsden v. Harridge, 2 Saunders, 61.

4 Booye v. Muth, 69 N. J. L. 266, 55 Atl. 287.

5 Wilkinson v. Prichard, 145 Ia. 65, 123 N. W. 064; In re Burke, 191 N. Y. 437, 84 N. E. 405.

6Nickels v. Hancock, 7 DeG. M. & 6. 300; Omaha v. Omaha Water Co.,

218 U. S. 180, 54 L. ed. 991, 48 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1084.

7 Hall v. Hardy, 3 P. Wms. 187; Omaha v. Omaha Water Co., 218 U. S. 180, 54 L. ed. 991, 48 L. R, A. (N.S.) 1084; Davis v. Harvard, 15 Serg. & R. 165, 16 Am. Dec. 537.

1 Bivans v. Utah Lake Land, Water & Power Co., - Utah - , 174 Pac. 1126

2 Bivans v. Utah Lake Land, Water & Power Co., - Utah - , 174 Pac. 1126.

3 Morgan v. Mather, 2 Ves. Jr. 15; Insurance Co. v. Hegewald, 161 Ind. 631,

66 N. E. 902; Turner v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., - Ia. - , 172 N. W. 166; Raleigh Coal & Coke Co. v. Mankin, - W. Va. - , 97 R. E. 299.

4 Turner v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., - Ia. - , 172 N. W. 166; Rand v. Reding-ton, 13 N. H. 72, 38 Am. Dec. 475; Raleigh Coal & Coke Co. v. Mankin, - W. Va. - , 97 S. E. 299.

5 Lantry Contracting Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry, Co.. 102 Kan. 799, 172 Pac. 527; Central Union Stock Yards Co. v. Uvalde Asphalt Paving Co., 82 N. J. Eq. 246, 87 Atl. 235.

6 Hickman v. Roberts [1913], A. C. 229; Lantry Contracting Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 102 Kan. 799, 172 Pac. 527; Central Union Stock Yards Co. v. Uvalde Asphalt Paving Co., 82 N. J. Eq. 246, 87 Atl. 235.

7 England. Morgan v. Mather, 2 Ves. Jr. 15.

United States. Burchell v. Marsh, 58 U. S. (17 now.) 344, 15 L. ed. 96.

California. Church v. Shanklin, 95 Cal. 626, 17 L. R. A. 207, 30 Pac. 789.

Florida. Johnson v. Wells, 72 Fla. 290, 73 So. 188.

Iowa. Turner v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., - Ia. - , 172 N. W. 166.

New York. In re Burke, 191 N. Y. 437, 84 N. E. 405. '

Utah. Bivans v. Utah Lake Land. Water & Power Co., - Utah - , 174 Pac. 1126.

Virginia. Adams v. Tri-City Amusement Co., - Va. - , 98 S. E. 647.

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

8 Burchell v. Marsh, 58 U. S. (17 How.) 344, 15 L. ed. 96; Turner v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., - Ia. - , 172 N. W. 166

9 Iowa. Turner v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co.. - Ia. - , 172 N. W. 166.

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

New Jersey. Collings Carriage Co. v. German-American Ins. Co., 86 N. J. Eq. 53. 97 Atl. 726.

Oregon. Oregon-Washington R. & Nav. Co. v. Spokane P. & S. Ry. Co., 83 Or. 528, 163 Pac. 600, 989.

West Virginia. Goff v. Goff, 78 W. Va. 423, 89 8. E. 9.

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

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

12 Knox v. Simmonds, 1 Ves. Jr. 369: Veghete v. Hoagland, 10 N. J. Eq. 450.

13 Iowa. Turner v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., - Ia. - , 172 N. W. 166.

Kansas. Swisher v. Dunn, 89 Kan.

412, 787, 49 L. R. A. (N.S.) 810, 813, 131 Pac. 571, 132 Pac. 832.

New Jersey. Collings Carriage Co. v. German-American Ins. Co., 86 N. J. Eq 53, 97 Atl. 726.

Oregon. Oregon-Washington R. ." Nav. Co. v. Spokane P. & S. Ry. (V. 83 Or. 528, 163 Pac. 600, 989.

West Virginia. Goff v. Goff, 78 W Va. 423, 89 S. E. 9.

14 England. Morgan v. Mather, 2 Ves. Jr. 15.

United States. United States v. Farragut, 89 U. S. (22 Wall.) 406, 22 L. ed. 879.

Michigan. Hewitt v. Reed City, 124 Mich. 6, 50 L. R. A. 128, 82 N. W. 6111.

Wisconsin. Donaldson v. Buhl man. 134 Wis. 117, 113 N. W. 638, 114 N. \V. 431.

15 See note 7 this section.

16 Washington National Bank v. Myers, 104 Kan. 526, 180 Pac. 268.

17 Washington National Bank v. Myers. 104 Knn. 526, 180 Pac. 268.