arbitration,  which  was  done.  By  the  charter  of  the  company,  they  were
obliged  to  construct  and  keep  in  repair  suitable  wagonways  over  or
under  their  road  where  the  railroad  intersected  any  farm.  During  the
deliberations  of  the  arbitrators,  the  complainant  stated  that  he  should
require  a  suitable  wagonway  over  the  railroad  where  it  croeeed  his  farm,
but  H.  and  W.  replied  that  this  was  a  matter  with  which  the  arbitrators
had  nothing  to  do,  and  was  no  part  of  the  submission.  This  view  was
assented  to  by  the  arbitrators  and  both  parties.  The  arbitrators  made  their
award,  and  U.  and  W.  waited  on  complainant  with  the  money  awarde<l
and  the  draft  of  a  deed.  The  complainant  objected  to  signing  this  deed,  on
the  ground,  that  itdid  not  in  express  terms  reserve  all  his  rights  to  a  cross-
ing ;  but  finally  executed  it,  on  being  assured  by  H.  and  W.,  one  of  whom
was  a  lawyer,  that  such  rights  would  not  be  affected  by  the  instrument.
The  company  having  failed  to  put  up  a  crossing  after  being  legally  no-
tified, the  complainant  made  it  at  his  own  expense,  and,  by  virtue  of  an
authority  contained  in  their  charter,  sued  them  at  law  for  the  money
expended.  The  company  set  up  the  deed  as  a  bar  to  the  recovery.  This
bill  was  filed  to  reform  the  deed  and  enjoin  the  defendants  from  inter-
posing it  as  a  defence  at  law.     The  company  filed  a  demurrer  to  the  bill.
