## Facts

- Jonathan Tobey contracted with Bristol County in 1838 to construct a road, later disputing the amount owed for the work.
- In 1839, Massachusetts enacted a special resolve authorizing the county commissioners either (a) to examine Tobey’s claims and make proper allowances or (b) to refer Tobey’s claims to mutually chosen arbitrators whose determination would be final.
- Tobey petitioned the commissioners to submit all of his claims to arbitration; the commissioners initially noted the request as granted but later issued an order referring only some claims and excluding claims involved in prior lawsuits.
- Tobey refused to proceed on a partial submission and filed an original bill in equity in federal circuit court seeking to compel the commissioners to arbitrate all claims and to select arbitrators from a list he proposed.

## Issues

1. Whether the legislative resolve authorized the commissioners to submit only part of Tobey’s claims to arbitration rather than all claims.
2. Whether the commissioners’ actions under the resolve were contractual (supporting specific performance) or an exercise of statutory judicial authority.
3. Whether a court of equity will specifically enforce an executory agreement to submit disputes to arbitration.
4. Whether mandamus in state court, rather than federal equitable relief, was the proper remedy for the commissioners’ refusal to proceed as demanded, and whether the federal court had any revisory power over related state-court action.

## Decision

- The court held the resolve did not authorize a partial arbitration submission; choosing arbitration required submission of all of Tobey’s claims covered by the resolve.
- The court characterized the commissioners’ authority under the resolve as an exercise of judicial functions delegated by the legislature, not a private contractual undertaking enforceable by specific performance.
- The court ruled that, even if viewed as contractual, equity will not decree specific performance of an executory agreement to arbitrate; such agreements are revocable before an award.
- The court held Tobey’s proper remedy for a refusal to act judicially under the resolve was mandamus in the appropriate state court, not a federal bill in equity.
- The bill in equity was dismissed.

## Legal Principles

- When a statute authorizes arbitration as an alternative to adjudication by designated officials, the authority to arbitrate is generally all-or-nothing as to the covered claims; officials lack authority to compel piecemeal arbitration absent statutory permission.
- Acts performed by public officials under a special legislative resolve may constitute delegated judicial functions rather than contractual performance.
- A court of equity will not specifically enforce an executory agreement to submit disputes to arbitration; courts may enforce an arbitration award once rendered, but not compel the arbitral submission itself.
- An agreement to arbitrate is revocable at law and in equity before the award is made, and private agreement cannot make it irrevocable before award.
- Mandamus is the appropriate remedy to compel public officers to perform a statutory, judicial duty; federal equity does not function as a reviewer of state-court proceedings concerning such duties.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed Tobey’s suit, holding that equity could not compel specific performance of a proposed arbitration submission and that any relief for the commissioners’ alleged failure to proceed under the legislative resolve lay in state-court mandamus, not federal equitable intervention.


Tobey v. County of Bristol, 23 F. Cas. 1313 (C.C.D. Mass. 1845)