In such a case as indicated in division 1, the appraisement award is the result of a mere contractual method of ascertaining the loss. Pacific Nat. Fire Insurance Co. v. Beavers, 87 Ga. App. 294, 298 ( 73 S.E.2d 765); Universal Laundry Cleaners v. General Ins. Co. of America, 64 Ga. App. 68, 71 ( 12 S.E.2d 181); National Fire Ins. Co. v. Shuman, 44 Ga. App. 819 (2) ( 163 S.E. 306); Ozburn v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., 45 Ga. App. 33, 38 ( 163 S.E. 321). And unless the award is set aside, it is binding on the parties as to the amount of loss; that is to say, the award constitutes the measure of damage or a limitation upon the insurer's liability. The award, however, is not decisive of the question of the insurer's ultimate liability under the terms of the policy.

That the appraiser's oath appeared to have been administered by different notaries would be no objection to the admission of their appraisal; and, as the umpire was not called upon to act, his selection and qualification were unnecessary to the validity of the proceeding. Universal Laundry Cleaners, Inc. v. General Insurance Co., 64 Ga. App. 68 ( 12 S.E.2d 181). 2.

4. The agreement and proceedings thereunder for the appraisal of the fire damage, which were entered into under the terms of the policy of insurance, did not constitute either a common-law or statutory arbitration, but a mere contractual method of ascertaining the loss. Universal Laundry Cleaners v. General Ins. Co. of America, 64 Ga. App. 68, 71 ( 12 S.E.2d 181); National Fire Ins. Co. v. Shuman, 44 Ga. App. 819 (2) ( 163 S.E. 306); Ozburn v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., 45 Ga. App. 33, 38 ( 163 S.E. 321). The appointment of an umpire by the court was pursuant to the stipulation in the fire policy and also pursuant to the terms of Code § 56-817, the stipulation conferring no other or greater authority upon the umpire than that conferred by statute. National Fire Ins. Co. v. Shuman, supra.

No formal trial is contemplated. It is not a common law arbitration. Universal Laundry Cleaners, Inc. v. General Ins. Co., 64 Ga. App. 68, 12 S.E.2d 181; Eberhardt v. Fed. Ins. Co., 14 Ga. App. 340, 80 S.E. 856; Bankers Mtg. B. L. Ass'n v. Simpson, 5 Cir., 93 F.2d 196, 114 A.L.R. 1368. No judge is to instruct them. The whole purpose of the appraisal is to escape the delay and cost and technicality of court procedure.

) In Universal Laundry & Cleaners v. General Ins. Co. of America, 64 Ga.App. 68, 12 S.E.2d 181, 183 [1940], a Georgia Court of Appeals held “it is immaterial whether the umpire is chosen before or after the disagreement arises” citing Chandos v. American Fire Insurance Company of Philadelphia, 84 Wis. 184, 198, 54 N.W. 390 [1893]. In Stevens v. Brown, 82 N.C. 460, 1880 WL 3217 [N.C.1880], the Supreme Court of North Carolina stated,