Taylor's Admin v. Nicolson

From Wythepedia: The George Wythe Encyclopedia
Revision as of 16:55, 3 May 2018 by Drbordley (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Taylor's Admin v. Nicolson''}} File:WytheAmblerVWyld1852.jpg|link=Media:Hening&MunfordsReports1809V1Taylor'sAdminvNicolson.pdf ‎|thumb|right|300px|First p...")

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

In Taylor's Admin. v. Nicolson, 11 Va. (1 Hen. & M.) 66 (1806),[1] the court determined whether there were grounds to set aside an arbitration award.

Background

Taylor and Nicolson entered into a partnership to lease “Manchester Mills”, a mill factory. The terms of the partnership stated that if either partner, the surviving partner could purchase the remainder of lease for a price determined by arbitrators mutually chosen by the surviving partner and the deceases' representatives. Taylor died and Nicolson sought to buy the remainder of the lease. Following the articles of partnership, both parties chose three arbitrators to determine the value of the unexpired lease in cash. The arbitrators concluded that the remainder was worth £595 on the condition that George Mayo, the lessor of Manchester Mills, waived all potential claims against Taylor’s estate. If George failed to agree to the waiver, the arbitration award would be void. Unhappy with the award, Taylor’s Administrators sued Nicolson in the High Court of Chancery arguing the award should be set aside because the arbitrators departed from the terms of the arbitration, the rates used to determine the award were usurious, and the award lacked mutuality.

The Court's Decision

Chancellor Wythe dismissed the complaint and decreed the award with interest, deducting any costs Nicolson paid to defend himself in court. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

See also

References

  1. William Hening and William Munford, Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Virginia: With Select Cases, Relating Chiefly to Points of Practice, Decided by the Superior Court of Chancery for the Richmond District,(Flatbush, N.Y.: I. Riley, 1809), 1:66.