In re the Arbitration of between Estate of Waters & Unexcelled Chemical Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Arbitration of between Estate of Waters & Unexcelled Chemical Corp.

26 A.D.2d 520, 272 N.Y.S.2d 102, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4042

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

DecidedJune 9, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 26 A.D.2d 520 (In re the Arbitration of between Estate of Waters & Unexcelled Chemical Corp.) 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 of between Estate of Waters & Unexcelled Chemical Corp., 26 A.D.2d 520, 272 N.Y.S.2d 102, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4042 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment herein appealed from, unanimously affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements to petitioner-respondent. We conclude the arbitrators acted within their powers. That portion of the award which declared that “Waters shall be entitled to future payments of * * * $375.00 per month in accordance with paragraph eight (8) of the aforesaid agreement” must be read and interpreted in conjunction with the demand which sought an adjudication that “ payments shall continue until the last patent assigned to respondent expires”. Paragraph 14 of the agreement provides for a termination date. It is asserted and not denied, the patent will expire on a day certain, 17 years from the date of the issuance of the letters patent. Since the patents are in respondent-appellant’s possession or under its control, the date of termination presumably is known to it or certainly may be ascertained. “That is certain which can be made certain” and the claim of indefiniteness is without substance. Finally, respondent-appellant submitted to and participated fully in the arbitration, and may not repudiate the award because of dissatisfaction with the result. Concur—Botein, P. J., Rabin, Stevens and Eager, JJ.

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

Order and judgment herein appealed from, unanimously affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements to petitioner-respondent. We conclude the arbitrators acted within their powers. That portion of the award which declared that “Waters shall be entitled to future payments of * * * $375.00 per month in accordance with paragraph eight (8) of the aforesaid agreement” must be read and interpreted in conjunction with the demand which sought an adjudication that “ payments shall continue until the last patent assigned to respondent expires”. Paragraph 14 of the agreement provides for a termination date. It is asserted and not denied, the patent will expire on a day certain, 17 years from the date of the issuance of the letters patent. Since the patents are in respondent-appellant’s possession or under its control, the date of termination presumably is known to it or certainly may be ascertained. “That is certain which can be made certain” and the claim of indefiniteness is without substance. Finally, respondent-appellant submitted to and participated fully in the arbitration, and may not repudiate the award because of dissatisfaction with the result. Concur—Botein, P. J., Rabin, Stevens and Eager, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.2d 520, 272 N.Y.S.2d 102, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4042, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-of-between-estate-of-waters-unexcelled-chemical-nyappdiv-1966.