In re the Arbitration between Gale & Hilts

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Arbitration between Gale & Hilts

262 A.D. 834, 28 N.Y.S.2d 270, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6125

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 18, 1941

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 262 A.D. 834 (In re the Arbitration between Gale & Hilts) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re the Arbitration between Gale & Hilts, 262 A.D. 834, 28 N.Y.S.2d 270, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6125 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Peb Cubiam.

There was no reasonable excuse for defendant’s willful default in opposing the motion to confirm the award of the arbitrators. The claim of duress was entirely without substance. On the merits no defense was established which justified vacating the award. All of the matters sought to be raised on this application were passed on by the arbitrators and were within the terms of the submission. Assuming that there might be a question of law as to the propriety of confirming an arbitrators’ award where there was patent illegality in the contract arbitrated, such a situation is not presented here. The arbitrators were warranted in finding that no bonuses were to be paid if the notes were discharged when due. Such loans are not usurious as matter of law. (Diehl v. Becker, 178 App. Div. 12.)

The order, so far as appealed from, should be reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements, and the respondent’s motion denied.

Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Dore and Callahan, JJ.

Order, so far as appealed from, unanimously reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the respondent’s motion denied. [176 Misc. 277.]

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

Peb Cubiam.

There was no reasonable excuse for defendant’s willful default in opposing the motion to confirm the award of the arbitrators. The claim of duress was entirely without substance. On the merits no defense was established which justified vacating the award. All of the matters sought to be raised on this application were passed on by the arbitrators and were within the terms of the submission. Assuming that there might be a question of law as to the propriety of confirming an arbitrators’ award where there was patent illegality in the contract arbitrated, such a situation is not presented here. The arbitrators were warranted in finding that no bonuses were to be paid if the notes were discharged when due. Such loans are not usurious as matter of law. (Diehl v. Becker, 178 App. Div. 12.)

The order, so far as appealed from, should be reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements, and the respondent’s motion denied.

Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Dore and Callahan, JJ.

Order, so far as appealed from, unanimously reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the respondent’s motion denied. [176 Misc. 277.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D. 834, 28 N.Y.S.2d 270, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6125, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-gale-hilts-nyappdiv-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack