Allen v. Ranney

1 Conn. 569
Supreme Court of Connecticut·Decided June 15, 1816·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

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 of new evidence; or that the case might be put on a different footing by new evidence ; or that a move perfect rule might have been adopted ; are no grounds for an application to a court of chancery.

In this opinion the other Judges severally concurred.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Allen v. Ranney, 1 Conn. 569 (Colo. 1816).

1 Conn. 569 (Allen v. Ranney) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Doctor's Associates, Inc. v. Windham
146 Conn. App. 768 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2013)
Town of Winchester v. Int'l Bhd. of P. O., No. Cv 93 0062654 (Dec. 13, 1994)
1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 12690 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1994)
Liggett v. Torrington Building Co.
158 A. 917 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1932)
In re Curtis & Castle Arbitration
30 A. 769 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1894)
Brown v. Green
7 Conn. 536 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1829)