Twin Lakes Reservoir & Canal Co. v. Platt Rogers, Inc., 14323.
| Decision Date | 25 September 1939 |
| Docket Number | 14323. |
| Citation | 94 P.2d 1090,105 Colo. 49 |
| Parties | TWIN LAKES RESERVOIR & CANAL CO. v. PLATT ROGERS, Inc. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Oct. 23, 1939.
Error to District Court, Pueblo County; Harry Leddy, Judge.
Action by the Twin Lakes Reservoir & Canal Company, a corporation against Platt Rogers, Incorporated, a corporation, to set aside an arbitration award and a judgment entered thereon. To review an adverse judgment, the plaintiff brings error.
Reversed and remanded.
Bartels, Blood & Bancroft, of Denver, and Harry E Mast, of Ordway, for plaintiff in error.
Adams & Gast, Sam Parlapiano, and James W. Booth, all of Pueblo, for defendant in error.
The parties to this litigation retain the same relative position here as in the lower court, and in this opinion the Twin Lakes Reservoir and Canal Company will be mentioned as plaintiff and Platt Rogers, Incorporated as defendant.
Plaintiff is a mutual ditch and reservoir company engaged in supplying water for the lands of its stockholders in Crowley county. Defendant is a corporation engaged in the construction and engineering business. September 14, 1933, the parties entered into a written contract for the construction by defendant of certain units of the plaintiff's 'Independence Pass Transmountain Diversion System', consisting of Tunnel No. One, the Lincoln Gulch Diversion Dam, the New York Collection Canal, and all incidental work in connection with such construction. The cost of the work on a bid basis amounted to $910,000, but the actual cost has been in excess of that sum. October 18, 1935, the chief engineer of plaintiff delivered to defendant the final estimate fixing the amount that he, as the representative of the plaintiff, found to be due defendant under the contract. Thereafter defendant filed with plaintiff certain written objections to this final estimate of the latter's chief engineer, and in addition, made certain specific claims against plaintiff for amounts said to be due it under the construction contract. Some of these objections were compromised and adjusted; others were withdrawn. Finally, when it appeared that no further amicable adjustment could be reached, the parties entered into a written agreement submitting the particular matters in controversy to arbitration and adjustment by arbitrators. Subseqnently an award dated April 5, 1937, was returned by the board of arbitrators whereby defendant was allowed an aggregate total of $67,645.40 upon various items against plaintiff. This award was filed in the district court of Pueblo county and judgment entered thereon in accordance therewith. Thereafter plaintiff instituted the instant proceeding in the district court of Pueblo county against defendant for the purpose of setting aside and vacating the award and the judgment rendered thereon. In due course defendant filed a general demurrer to the plaintiff's second amended complaint, which demurrer was sustained by the court and plaintiff having elected to stand upon its second amended complaint, judgment was entered by the court dismissing the action and plaintiff is here seeking a review of that adjudication.
As grounds for the equitable relief sought plaintiff claims: (1) That the arbitrators did not conduct their proceedings as required by the Colorado Code of Civil Procedure and the arbitration agreement; (2) that the arbitrators exceeded the authority conferred upon them by the arbitration agreement in making an award that was contrary to and in direct violation of the express provisions of the construction contract of September 14, 1933; (3) that the arbitrators exceeded the authority conferred upon them by the arbitration agreement in making awards in favor of defendant for claims never made by it and for matters never submitted to said arbitrators for determination.
Upon the first point the complaint alleges that the board of arbitrators violated the terms and conditions of the arbitration agreement by holding many meetings and hearings with reference to the matters in controversy, at times and places unknown to the plaintiff; that said arbitrators failed and neglected to give plaintiff notice in writing or otherwise of the times and places of said meetings and hearings, and it is alleged, upon information and belief that no notice of such meetings was given to the defendant. It is further alleged that the arbitrators delegated to one A. C. Stieful and other persons unknown to plaintiff, the determination of certain matters in controversy and adopted as their own the findings and determination of such matters by the same Stiefel and such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Columbine Valley Const. Co. v. Board of Directors, Roaring Fork School Dist. RE-1J
...A mere assertion of error unsupported by evidence cannot serve as a basis for vacating a judgment. Twin Lakes Reservoir and Canal Co. v. Platt Rogers, Inc., 105 Colo. 49, 94 P.2d 1090 (1939). Second, the arbitration award specifically answers the claim of incompleteness. The award states th......
-
Cassara v. Wofford
...of the fact that there may have been no corrupt intention on the part of the arbitrators. See Twin Lakes Reservoir & Canal Co. v. Platt Rogers, Inc., 105 Colo. 49, 94 P.2d 1090; Id., 112 Colo. 155, 147 P.2d 828, 832; Puget Sound Bridge & Dredging Co. v. Lake Washington Shipyards, 1 Wash.2d ......
-
Gaddis Mining Co. v. Continental Materials Corp., Civ. No. 4438.
...them, "so that the award did not in fact represent their judgment upon the matters submitted". Twin Lakes Reservoir & Canal Co. v. Platt Rogers, Inc., 112 Colo. 155, 147 P.2d 828, 835; Wilson v. Wilson, 18 Colo. 615, 34 P. In Colorado, an arbitration award is not subject to review in the co......
-
Voth v. Fisher
...principle that a delegated power cannot be delegated. This principle is applied to arbitrators: Twin Lakes Reservoir and Canal Co. v. Platt Rogers, 105 Colo. 49, 54, 94 P.2d 1090; 5 Am.Jur.2d 590, Arbitration and Award § 93, and, generally, to administrative officials when exercising discre......
-
Enforcement of Arbitration Awards in Colorado
...Co., 63 F.930 (1894); Noffsinger v. Thompson, 54 P.2d. 683, 98 Colo. 154 (1936). 42. Twin Lakes Reservoir & Lanar Co. v. Platt Rogers, 94 P.2d 1090 (Colo. 1939). 43. CRS § 13-22-210(2). See, Ash Apartments v. Martinex, 656 P.2d 708 (Colo. Ct.App. 1982). 44. 653 P.2d 413 (Colo. Ct.App. 1982)......
-
A Three-year Survey of Colorado Appellate Decisions on Arbitration-part Ii
...12. Carson, supra, note 5 at 999. 13. Id. Carson based his due process argument on Twin Lakes Reservoir & Canal Co. v. Platt Rogers, Inc., 94 P.2d 1090 (Colo. 1939) and cases from other (Martin-Morris Agency, Inc. v. Mietzner, 465 P.2d 425 (Wash. App. 1970); Cassara v. Wofford, 55 So.2d 102......