Von Langendorff v. Riordan
| Decision Date | 19 July 1960 |
| Citation | 163 A.2d 100,147 Conn. 524 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | Diana L. VON LANGENDORFF v. Frances M. RIORDAN, Executrix (ESTATE of Thomas J. RIORDAN), et al. Frances M. RIORDAN, Eexecutrix (ESTATE of Thomas J. RIORDAN), et al. v. Diana L. VON LANGENDORFF. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
John W. Boyd, Westport, for appellant (plaintiff in the first case and defendant in the second).
Robert B. Devine, Norwalk, for appellee (named defendant in the first case and named plaintiff in the second).
Before BALDWIN, C. J., KING, MELLITZ and SHEA, JJ., and ALCORN, Superior Court Judge.
These two cases arose as a result of an award made by arbitrators in connection with a dispute between the parties over their respective rights and obligations under a building contract.
In May, 1954, Diana Langer Von Langendorff, hereinafter called the owner, and Thomas J. Riordan, hereinafter called the contractor, entered into an agreement for the construction of a dwelling on land in Westport. Thereafter, the contractor began work under the agreement. In November 1954, the parties terminated their contract by mutual consent. In January, 1955, they entered into a new contract wherein they agreed to reinstate the contract of May, 1954, subject to certain changes and alterations. Under the terms of the new contract, the work was to be completed on or before May 15, 1955. The contractor left the job on July 3, 1955, claiming that he had been unable to finish it before the time limited because of the owner's interference and lack of co-operation. He maintained, nevertheless, that the work had been substantially completed. Each party claimed damages from the other for breach of contract. The dispute was submitted to arbitrators pursuant to article 40 of the general conditions of the contract. On October 3, 1958, the arbitrators made their award. The contractor died during the course of the arbitration proceedings, and the executrix of his estate was substituted as a party.
The first case was instituted by the owner, who filed a motion to vacate or modify and correct the award. The executrix entered a special appearance and filed a plea in abatement which was overruled. She then filed an answer denying the allegations in the owner's bill of particulars. The court, after a hearing, denied the motion of the owner, and she had appealed. The second case was instituted by the executrix. She applied to the court for an order to confirm the award of the arbitrators. The court rendered judgment confirming the award, and the owner has appealed. The assignments of error filed by the owner in the two cases are identical. She claims that the arbitrators 'exceeded their powers and so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final and definite award in the subject matter submitted was not made,' and that in making the award the arbitrators showed evident partiality toward the contractor.
No finding was made in either case. In support of her motion, the owner relied on General Statutes § 52-418, which provides in part that the award of arbitrators shall be vacated '(b) if there has been evident partiality or corruption on the part of the arbitrators or either of them; * * * (d) if the arbitrators have exceeded their powers or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made.' It is the established policy of the courts to regard awards with liberality. Every reasonable presumption and intendment will be made in favor of the award and of the arbitrators' acts and proceedings. Hence, the burden rests on the party attacking the award to produce evidence sufficient to invalidate or avoid it. 6 C.J.S. Arbitration and Award § 130, p. 281; Sturges, Commercial Arbitrations and Awards, p. 549.
The owner asserts that the arbitrators failed to consider a claim by her that she had made an additional payment to the contractor. She assumes, because no specific reference was made to this item in the award, that the arbitrators failed to consider the item. There is no rule of law which requires arbitrators to make a finding of facts. The award must contain the actual decision which results from their consideration of the matter submitted to them. In re Curtis-Castle...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
O & G/O'Connell Joint Venture v. Chase Family Ltd. Partnership No. 3
...Milford, 179 Conn. 678, 682, 427 A.2d 859 (1980); Ramos Iron Works, Inc. v. Franklin Construction Co., supra; Von Langendorff v. Riordan, 147 Conn. 524, 527, 163 A.2d 100 (1960). In their application for vacation of the award, the defendants in this case relied principally upon § 52-418(a)(......
-
Local 530, AFSCME, Council 15 v. City of New Haven
...awards on grounds of partiality in cases, like the present one, which lacked sufficient evidentiary support. Von Langendorff v. Riordan, 147 Conn. 524, 163 A.2d 100 (1960)." Schwarzschild v. Martin, supra, 191 Conn. at 327, 464 A.2d 774. Von Langendorff likewise did not involve the issue in......
-
Connecticut Ins. Guaranty Assn. v. Zasun
...the burden rests on the party attacking the award to produce evidence sufficient to invalidate or avoid it. Von Langendorff v. Riordan, 147 Conn. 524, 527, 163 A.2d 100 (1960). Thus, a reviewing court must uphold an arbitration award unless it determines that the factual findings of the arb......
-
Doctor's Assocs., Inc. v. Troy W. Windham. Troy W. Windham
...on a mere showing that the complaining party, or even the court, would have decided the matter differently. Von Langendorff v. Riordan, 147 Conn. 524, 528, 163 A.2d 100 (1960). An order vacating an arbitration award will be granted, pursuant to § 52–418(a), only if the court finds any of th......