Allen v. Ranney
Supreme Court of Connecticut
IN ERROR. THIS was a bill in chancery, to set aside an award, and to examine and adjust the accounts of the parties. The bill stated the following facts. In April, 1814, Ranney conveyed, by bill of sale, to Allen, a sloop called The Opposition, as security for debts due from Ranney to Allen, and for indorsements made by Allen for Ranney’s accommodation.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR. THIS was a bill in chancery, to set aside an award, and to examine and adjust the accounts of the parties. The bill stated the following facts. In April, 1814, Ranney conveyed, by bill of sale, to Allen, a sloop called The Opposition, as security for debts due from Ranney to Allen, and for indorsements made by Allen for Ranney’s accommodation. In December 1814, Allen sent the sloop to New-York for sale, by Ranney's consent ; but as Ranney directed him not to sell her for less than a specified sum, which could not be obtained, she was not sold. In the month of March 1815, Allen…
1Opinion of the Court
Swift, Ch. J.
Courts of equity can set aside awards for corruption and partiality in the arbitrators; for mistakes on their own principles ; and for fraud and misbehaviour in the parties. Here there is no pretence of corruption in the arbitrators ; there is no allegation of any mistake by them, or any fraud in the party, which will warrant the interposition of a court of equity. On the principle contended for, every award might be re-examined; and arbitrations, instead of being an expeditious mode of settling controversies, would only be calculated to lengthen and perplex them. The discovery…
2Cited by4 opinions
- In re Curtis & Castle ArbitrationSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1894
- Liggett v. Torrington Building Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1932
- Brown v. GreenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1829
- Doctor's Associates, Inc. v. WindhamConnecticut Appellate Court · 2013