Liggett v. Torrington Bldg. Co.
| Decision Date | 23 February 1932 |
| Citation | 114 Conn. 425,158 A. 917 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | LIGGETT et al. v. TORRINGTON BLDG. CO. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Litchfield County: Allyn L. Brown Earnest C. Simpson, and Alfred E. Baldwin, Judges.
No error.
William M. Foord, of Litchfield, and William S. Locke, of Hartford, for appellants.
Charles P. Roraback and James W. Roraback, both of Torrington, for appellee.
Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HAINES, HINMAN, BANKS, and AVERY JJ.
Pursuant to a written contract, the Torrington Building Company (appellee) erected a stone dwelling house for Richard H. and Lura M. A. Liggett, husband and wife, in Litchfield, and claimed from them the balance of the contract price certified by the architect as owing: while the owners claimed damages from the contractor for work improperly done under the contract. The parties, not being able to settle the controversy, agreed upon arbitration, pursuant to Gen. Stat. 1918. § 5993. A rule of court was entered October 18, 1929, upon agreement of the parties, ordering them to submit to and be concluded by such arbitration. It is to be noted that the arbitration was not had pursuant to the provisions of Public Acts 1929, c. 65. Gen. Stat. (1930), § § 5840-5856. February 11, 1930, a majority of the arbitrators awarded the contractor a net amount of $5.014.61: whereupon the contractor moved the court to accept the award, and render judgment in its favor. The owners filed a remonstrance, to which the contractor demurred. Upon the sustaining of the demurrer, the owners were allowed to file an amended remonstrance, to which the contractor also demurred. The second demurrer was likewise sustained, and October 21, 1931, the court rendered judgment for the contractor in accordance with the award, from which judgment the owners appeal.
The questions raised are whether or not the owners have alleged sufficient facts in their remonstrance and amended remonstrance to justify the court in setting aside the award of the arbitrators. In substance, the grounds of remonstrance advanced are: (1) That the majority of the arbitrators applied erroneous principles in arriving at their conclusion, and mistook the law in construing the contract between the parties; (2) that they found certain facts without evidence; and (3) that they were influenced by bias or prejudice in favor of the contractor in rendering a decision in its favor.
From the award of the majority of the arbitrators, it appears that June 4, 1926, the contractor entered into a contract with the owners for the construction of a new stone house in Litchfield according to plans prepared by an architect in New York City, at an agreed price of $106,680. The contract included a provision that, when the architect found the work acceptable and the contract fully performed, he should promptly issue final certificate, and the entire balance found to be due the contractor and noted in the certificate then became due and payable. Such a certificate was issued by the architect June 18, 1928, and the sum found due was $4,933. The arbitrators found that the agreement, the general conditions of the contract, the drawings and specifications, including all modifications thereof, incorporated in the documents before their execution, formed the contract. Among the general conditions of the contract relating to the powers of the architect were the following:
The specifications of the contract provide:
The main item of dispute between the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bodner v. United Services Auto. Ass'n
...... are not bound to follow strict rules of law, unless it be made a condition of the submission....' Liggett v. Torrington Building Co., 114 Conn. 425, 432, 158 A. 917 [1932]." Chase Brass & Copper Co. v. Chase Brass & Copper Workers Union, 139 Conn. 591, 595-96, 96 A.2d 209 (1953). Had th......
-
Skidmore, Owings and Merrill v. Connecticut General Life Ins. Co.
...141 A.2d 479; Chase Brass & Copper Co. v. Chase Brass & Copper Workers Union, 139 Conn. 591, 595, 96 A.2d 209; Liggett v. Torrington Building Co., 114 Conn. 425, 432, 158 A. 917; see 5 Am.Jur.2d 564, Arbitration and Award, § The opinion of the court in Reconstruction Finance Corporation v. ......
-
Griffith Co. v. San Diego College for Women
...America, 50 Cal.App.2d 810, 814-817, 123 P.2d 942; Gord v. F. S. Harmon & Co., 188 Wash. 134, 140, 61 P.2d 1294; Liggett v. Torrington Bldg. Co., 114 Conn. 425, 432, 158 A. 917; Koepke v. E. Liethen Grain Co., 205 Wis. 75, 77, 236 N.W. 544; Twin Lakes Reservoir & Canal Co. v. Platt Rogers, ......
-
Connecticut Union of Tel. Workers, Inc. v. Southern New England Tel. Co.
...Brotherhood of Teamsters, etc. v. Trudon & Platt Motor Lines, Inc., 146 Conn. 17, 21, 147 A.2d 484, and Liggett v. Torrington Building Co., 114 Conn. 425, 430, 158 A. 917. In each of these cases the arbitration provision was expressed in broad, all-embracing terms. In the Trudon & Platt cas......