ot err in not reviewing and passing upon the arbitrators' conclusions of law for the following reasons: (a) The courts are not authorized to set aside an award for errors of law made by the arbitrators; (b) the record does not show upon its face that the arbitrators erred in any way; and (c) no evidence was introduced showing that the arbitrators erred in any way. Compton v. Construction Co., 315 Mo. 1089; Sec. 14025, R.S. 1929; Newman v. La Baume, 9 Mo. 35; Vaughn v. Graham, 11 Mo. 576; Bigelow v. Newall, 10 Pick. 348; Mickels v. Thayer, 14 Allen, 114; Baker v. Crockett, Hard., 388; Matter of King, 2 K.B. 32; Shepard v. Watrous, 3 Cal. 166; Sanborn v. Murphy, 50 N.H. 65; Perriman v. Steggal, 9 Bing. 679; Campbell v. Turnbow, 1 Price, 81; Wilson v. King, 2 Cromp. M. 689; Ward v. American Bank, 7 Metc. 489; White Star Mining Co. v. Hultberg, 220 Ill. 578; Phillips v. Rouss, 7 N.Y. 378; Dodson v. Railroad, 78 N.Y. 582; Elliott v. Coffin, 106 Mo. 365; Raymond v. Ins. Co., 114 Mich. 386; Wilkins v. Allen, 62 N.Y.S. 1068; Rounds v. Aiken Mfg. Co., 58 S.C. 299; Phansuf v. Corey, 190 Mass. 237; Beckett v. Wiglesworth, 178 S.W. 900; Fernandez Grain Co. v. Hunter, 217 Mo. App. 196; Bridgman v. Bridgman, 23 Mo. 274; Reily v. Russell, 34 Mo. 527; Squires v. Anderson, 54 Mo. 197; Taylor v. Scott, 26 Mo. App. 251; Reeves v. McGlochlin, 65 Mo. App. 642; Bennett's Admr. v. Russell's Admr., 34 Mo. 524; Hyeronimus v. Allison, 52 Mo. 102; Mitchell v. Curran, 1 Mo. App. 453; State ex rel. v. Merchants Exchange, 2 Mo. App. 96; Thatcher Imp. Merc. Co. v. Brubaker, 193 Mo. App. 627. GANTT, J.
The objections which may be thus taken, however, are only those which might have been taken by an independent motion to vacate, correct or modify. In Matter of Wilkins ( 48 App. Div. 433, 438) it was said: "As to the matters which may be reviewed upon an appeal from such a judgment (based on an order confirming, modifying or correcting the award), our view is that the appellate court can consider such questions (but only such questions) as might have been raised upon a motion to vacate, modify or correct the award. Thus, if the award has been confirmed, the appellant may contend that it ought to have been vacated, modified or corrected upon some or all of the grounds set out respectively in sections 2374 and 2375 of the Code of Civil Procedure, so far as the record on appeal discloses the existence of such grounds.