People Ex Rel. Cranford Co. v. . Willcox

New York Court of Appeals

People Ex Rel. Cranford Co. v. . Willcox

101 N.E. 1118, 207 N.Y. 743, 1913 N.Y. LEXIS 1427

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 4, 1913

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 101 N.E. 1118 (People Ex Rel. Cranford Co. v. . Willcox) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People Ex Rel. Cranford Co. v. . Willcox, 101 N.E. 1118, 207 N.Y. 743, 1913 N.Y. LEXIS 1427 (N.Y. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The questions raised by the appellants are very satisfactorily discussed in the opinion of the Appellate Division with a single exception and that relates to the allowance of interest upon the award. We think the allowance of such interest was not justified either by the terms of the submission or by the character of the relator’s claim. There is no reference to the subject of interest in the agreement for submission to arbitration, nor is there anything in the language of the agreement from which an intent to submit the question of interest may be fairly implied. The character of the relator’s claim also negatives the suggestion that it is one upon which interest may be awarded either as a liquidated demand or one capable of liquidation by mere computation. It was for extra work and by the very terms of the contract the question was first to be determined whether the relator had done any extra work before the amount of its compensation therefor could be fixed by arbitration. Under these circumstances there was no liquidated claim until the amount was fixed by the award.

The order should, therefore, be modified by directing that the writ require the certification of the amount of the award, but without interest up to the time of the final award, and as thus modified affirmed, without costs to either party.

Cullen, Ch. J., Werner, Willard Bartlett, Hiscock, Chase, Collin and Hogan, JJ., concur.

Ordered accordingly.

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

Per Curiam.

The questions raised by the appellants are very satisfactorily discussed in the opinion of the Appellate Division with a single exception and that relates to the allowance of interest upon the award. We think the allowance of such interest was not justified either by the terms of the submission or by the character of the relator’s claim. There is no reference to the subject of interest in the agreement for submission to arbitration, nor is there anything in the language of the agreement from which an intent to submit the question of interest may be fairly implied. The character of the relator’s claim also negatives the suggestion that it is one upon which interest may be awarded either as a liquidated demand or one capable of liquidation by mere computation. It was for extra work and by the very terms of the contract the question was first to be determined whether the relator had done any extra work before the amount of its compensation therefor could be fixed by arbitration. Under these circumstances there was no liquidated claim until the amount was fixed by the award.

The order should, therefore, be modified by directing that the writ require the certification of the amount of the award, but without interest up to the time of the final award, and as thus modified affirmed, without costs to either party.

Cullen, Ch. J., Werner, Willard Bartlett, Hiscock, Chase, Collin and Hogan, JJ., concur.

Ordered accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 N.E. 1118, 207 N.Y. 743, 1913 N.Y. LEXIS 1427, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-cranford-co-v-willcox-ny-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack