LIBERIA TRADING CORPORATION, represented by H. TAVERNA, manager, and the widow and heirs of S. DAVID COLEMAN, represented by Ettal Coleman and Othello Coleman, Appellants, v. SAMUEL B. COLE, Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, MONTSERRADO COUNTY. Argued March 10, 12, 17, 18, and 19, 1970. Decided June 11, 1970. 1. In an action of ejectment, the plaintiff may ask for damages sustained by him by reason of the wrongful detention, as well as recovery of the land, and the jury in such a case can return a verdict inclusive of monetary damages it finds the plaintiff has sustained. 2. The amount of monetary damages found by a jury need bear no relation to the degree of misconduct of the defendant giving rise to such damages. 3. The failure of a party to object to the award set forth in a copy of an arbitration award served upon such party, within the time allowed by statute for objections, is tantamount to conceding the correctness thereof. Appellee brought an action of ejectment, in which he sought not only possession of the land in dispute but monetary damages, occasioned by the loss of a prospective lease agreement resulting from the occupancy of the land by appellants. A board of arbitration was appointed and rendered its first report to which appellants objected. After a second report was submitted, no objections were made to it by appellants until several weeks had gone by and after the award, found for the plaintiff, had been confirmed by the trial judge. The case, based primarily on the second report, was given to the jury and it returned a verdict for the plaintiff, finding him the legal owner and awarding a substantial amount to him for the damages sustained. An appeal was taken by the defendants from the judgment of the court. Judgment affirmed. Morgan, Grimes and Harmon for appellants. uel B. Cole, appellee, pro se. 100 Sam- LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS MR. JUSTICE WARDSWORTH 101 delivered the opinion of the Court. An action was instituted by Samuel B. Cole, the appellee, against the Liberia Trading Corporation in 1961, claiming that the said L.T.C. had encroached upon two lots purchased from C. C. Burke. He produced an undated deed issued to him by C. C. Burke, dated 1950, for two lots in the same area as the Coleman’s deed. This deed was probated in 1952. Upon an appeal to the Supreme Court growing out of the circuit court’s denial of the Coleman heirs’ application to intervene as partydefendants, the case was remanded, with instructions that the Coleman heirs be joined. In keeping with the opinion of the Supreme Court, the plaintiff instituted an action of ejectment against L.T.C., and the widow and heirs of S. David Coleman. The defendants in their answer contended that even though plaintiff and defendants purchased their land from the same grantor, the defendants have an older deed than that of the plaintiff. Because of this, application was made to the court by both parties that the dispute be submitted to a board of arbitrators, composed of surveyors, to ascertain whether the metes and bounds of both deeds call for the same parcel of land. The board was set up and in the presence of both parties the two parcels of land were surveyed. The first report submitted by the board was objected to by defendants on the grounds that the report was meaningless and inconclusive as to the points in controversy, and they prayed that the report be resubmitted for a more definite and intelligible result. Since there was no resistance to this application, the report was returned to the board for clarification. When the board submitted the second and final report there was no objection made to it, and the report was made a part of the record in the case. A jury was selected and the case was tried. We, note 102 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS that during the trial of the case defendants approached plaintiff in an effort to compromise the issues, though it appears that no understanding could be reached. The second report of the arbitrators was not objected to for several weeks by the defendants, the trial judge having characterized the correctness of the report as the sole issue. Prior to being submitted as evidence before the jury at the trial of the case after the arbitrators had testified that the report was signed by them, it was confirmed, as required by statute. Failure on the part of the defendants to file’ objections within the statutory time constituted a waiver and was tantamount to the admission of the correctness of the survey. The final judgment was rendered on August 23, 1967, in favor of plaintiff, to which judgment defendants noted exceptions and announced an appeal to this Court, which was granted. Defendants submitted a bill of exceptions containing twenty-three counts; count eleven reads : “And also because there being not the slightest evidence to prove that plaintiff suffered or sustained damages to the extent of $12,000., the jury arbitrarily awarded said damages which the court confirmed, to which defendants then and there excepted.” In his complaint seeking recovery of the land at issue, the plaintiff alleged injury to him and prayed for damages. Our Civil Procedure Law at the time of the bringing of the proceeding, provided for damages to the plaintiff in ejectment suits. “Ordinarily no damages shall be granted in an action of ejectment. However, a plaintiff may ask for damages for the wrongful detention of his land in his complaint in an action of ejectment, and the question of damages shall thereupon be decided along with the question of rightful possession ; provided, however, that the plaintiff is never entitled to damages when his LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 103 complaint is based on a forfeiture of the land for nonpayment of rent.” 1956 Code, 6:1126. The evidence in this case shows that there was an agreement between the plaintiff and a prospective lessee to lease the two lots in dispute for a period of twenty years, at an annual rental of $1,000. Factories and residential quarters to the value of several thousand dollars were to be erected, but the agreement could not be concluded because of the alleged unlawful possession of the premises by the defendants. The plaintiff’s evidence was not rebutted or impeached. A jury may award damages in the amount of the loss sustained by the plaintiff without regard to the degree of misconduct of which the defendant is found guilty. King v. Williams, [1916] LRSC 2; 2 LLR 219 (1916). The damages found in amount of $12,000.00 was included in the verdict and was confirmed by the trial judge in his final judgment. The verdict and judgment thereon were entirely proper, and count eleven of the bill of exceptions is therefore not sustained. As to confirmation of arbitration awards and objections to them, our statutes are clear. “A copy of an arbitration award shall be served on the parties to the arbitration, who shall have not less than four days to file written objections to the award. The objections may be based on any one or more of the following grounds only : corruption of the arbitrators ; gross partiality; want of notice of the time or place of the proceeding; or error of law apparent on the face of the award. Written objections except errors of law shall be verified by affidavit.” Civil Procedure Law, 1956 Code, 6:1283. “If at the end of four days after service of a copy of the award on each party no exceptions or objections have been filed or objections thereto have been overruled, 104 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS it shall be confirmed. Whenever an award is confirmed, judgment may be entered thereon at any time.” Civil Procedure Law, 1956 Code, 6:1285. Appellants having failed to pursue their rights in filing objections to the award of the arbitrators within the time allowed by law, the inaction was tantamount to conceding the correctness of the award. Therefore, in view of the foregoing, it is our considered opinion that the judgment of the trial court should not be disturbed, wherefore it is hereby affirmed with costs against defendants-appellants. And it is hereby so ordered. ilffirmed,