¶1 The first exception is overruled. There was no necessity that there should have been any formal or written notice to the referees of their appointment. It is sufficient that they were appointed and met and had the parties before them and made their award.
¶2 2. The second exception is overruled. There are no facts found to sustain it. If the facts had been found to be as stated in the exception, that the referees passed upon matters not referred to them, the exception would have been sustained.
¶3 3. The third exception is overruled. The fact is not found to be true as alleged, that one of the referees was interested in the subject matter of the reference; but if it were true it would make no difference; because the reference was by the parties, and the parties may refer their disputes to interested persons if they choose to do so. It is not alleged that the reference was made in ignorance of that fact, if indeed that would make any difference.
¶4 4. The fourth exception is overruled. Eeferees are not obliged to report the evidence upon which their award is founded.
¶5 5. The fifth exception is so vague that we are unable to appreciate it; it is not specified in what the award is contrary to law. In the absence of fraud or the mistake of law where *46 they intend to decide the law and miss it, arbitrators are a law unto themselves. Jones v. Frazier, 1 Hawks, 379.
¶6 No error.
¶7 Pee Cubiam. Judgment affirmed.