Citizens Bldg. v. Western Union Tel. Co., 9873.
| Decision Date | 23 June 1941 |
| Docket Number | No. 9873.,9873. |
| Citation | 120 F.2d 982 |
| Parties | CITIZENS BLDG. OF WEST PALM BEACH, Inc., v. WESTERN UNION TEL. CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
L. A. Mooney, of West Palm Beach, Fla., for appellant.
J. Julien Southerland, of Miami Beach, Fla., for appellee.
Before FOSTER, HUTCHESON, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.
This is a suit for specific performance of an agreement to re-lease. We must decide whether the proceedings to determine the fair rental value of the property constituted an arbitration or an appraisal, and which, if either, of two awards made by the board of arbiters was valid and binding upon the parties. The Court below concluded that the procedure was an appraisal and not an arbitration; that the first award made was valid and should be enforced; and that the second award should be set aside.
Appellant, Citizens Building of West Palm Beach, Inc., succeeded the Citizens Investment Company in ownership of an office building in West Palm Beach, Florida. Appellee, Western Union Telegraph Company, leased certain office space in the building for a ten-year period beginning June 1, 1929. The lease contract contained an option whereby the lessee might renew its lease for a second ten-year period under the same conditions, except that the rental under the renewed lease should be that agreed upon by the parties. Appellee decided to exercise its option, and the controversy over the amount of the annual rental resulted in this appeal.
The contract provided that, in the event no amount of rental could be agreed upon, arbiters would be chosen to determine it, by whose decision both parties would abide. On or about May 16, 1939, three arbiters were appointed in accordance with the contract, and on June 5, 1939, without having given notice of or having held any hearing upon the matter, the arbiters returned an award. The landlord petitioned the arbiters to set aside the award and grant another hearing on the principal ground that it had had no notice of any hearing for the presentation of evidence on the issue, and had not waived such notice. Over the objection of the tenant the board of arbitration set aside the award made, gave notice of and held hearings, heard such proof as the parties desired to submit, and returned another and different award on March 5, 1940. Appellant claims that the second award was valid; appellee contends that the first was valid and should be enforced.
We think it clear that the proceeding contemplated by the contract and undertaken pursuant to it was an arbitration rather than an appraisal. It was not agreed that the amount of rental should be fixed by disinterested third persons, which would have contemplated an appraisal; rather it was provided that the rent should be agreed upon between the parties, and only in the event of a genuine dispute between them as to the rental value of the premises would the matter be submitted to arbitrators. This feature distinguishes this case from that of Florida Yacht Club v. Renfroe, 67 Fla. 154, 64 So. 742, in which case the appraisers were to act, not in the event of a dispute about the proper price for the property, but in the event the lessee decided to exercise his option and purchase the property. Further, the conclusion reached by those selected to act could not be altered or rejected at the will of either party, but, by written contract stipulation, it was binding upon both. The chosen body acted in lieu of, and with its decision having the binding quality of a judgment of, a court of law. These are the functions of a board of arbiters, and the proceeding had was a common-law arbitration.1
The universal rule in common-law arbitrations is that the parties are entitled to be heard, after reasonable notice, upon the subject matter in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Iron Workers Local No. 272 v. Bowen
...inconsistent contention that the arbitrator lacked the authority to clarify his decision. Bowen cites Citizens Bldg. v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 120 F.2d 982, 984 (5th Cir. 1941), for its statement that once "an arbitral board renders a final award, its powers and duties under the submi......
-
Brzowski v. Maryland Home Imp. Com'n
...v. Shafer, 6 Md. 518, 523 (1854); Bayne v. Morris, 68 U.S. (1 Wall) 97, 17 L.Ed. 495 (1863); Citizens Bldg. of W. Palm Beach v. Western Union Tel. Co., 120 F.2d 982, 984 (5th Cir.1941); International Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local Union 1547 v. Ketchikan, 805 P.2d 340, 343 n. 7 (Alaska 1991);......
-
Norman v. Kellie Auto Sales, Inc.
...citing Bayne v. Morris (1863), 68 U.S. 97, 99 [1 Wall. 97, 17 L.Ed. 495]. Lockhart also relied on Citizens Bldg. of W. Palm Beach, Inc. v. W. Union Tel. Co. (C.A. 5, 1941), 120 F.2d 982, 984, which held, "Arbitrators are appointees with but a single duty and * * * performance of that duty t......
-
Ierna v. Arthur Murray Intern., Inc.
...upon the same issues.' " Iron Workers Local No. 272 v. Bowen, 624 F.2d 1255, 1264 (5th Cir.1980) (quoting Citizens Bldg. v. Western Union Tel. Co., 120 F.2d 982, 984 (5th Cir.1941)).In this case, however, the arbitral award was not final until the arbitrators determined the amount of costs ......