Successor arbitrator jurisdiction upheld where parties acquiesced and no patent legal error justified interference with the award.

Where the agreement appointed the Superintending Engineer for the time being as arbitrator, a successor incumbent could validly complete the reference when the parties knew of the change, received notice, and participated without protest. That conduct amounted to acquiescence, so a later objection to jurisdiction or alleged breach of natural justice failed. A further challenge that all claims were not separately considered also failed, because an unreasoned award is not reopened unless there is a patent mistake of law or a gross misstatement of facts causing miscarriage of justice, which was not shown.

---

---

Issues: Whether the successor Superintending Engineer could validly complete the arbitration and whether the award was liable to be set aside for alleged lack of jurisdiction, breach of natural justice, or non-consideration of claims.

Analysis: The agreement named the Superintending Engineer of the Circle for the time being as arbitrator. The party knew of the change in incumbency, received notice, and participated in the proceedings before the successor without protest, fresh objection, or request for a further opportunity. Such conduct amounted to acquiescence and precluded a later challenge to the successor's authority. The objection based on natural justice therefore failed. The challenge to the award on the ground that all claims were not considered also failed, since an unreasoned award is not liable to be reopened unless there is a patent mistake of law or a gross misstatement of facts causing miscarriage of justice, which was not shown.

Conclusion: The successor arbitrator had jurisdiction to conclude the reference, and the award was not liable to be interfered with.

---