Cook v. DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION, 14253.
| Decision Date | 23 May 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 14253.,14253. |
| Citation | 317 F.2d 412 |
| Parties | R. L. E. COOK, Appellant, v. DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION and The Kuljian Corporation, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
William N. J. McGinniss, Ardmore, Pa., for appellant.
Walter J. Collins, Jr., Philadelphia, Pa. (David F. Maxwell, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellee, Kuljian Corp.
Before McLAUGHLIN and FORMAN, Circuit Judges, and COOLAHAN, District Judge.
This is a diversity action which has been proceeded with by the plaintiff against the defendant, The Kuljian Corporation, alone. There was attempted service of process upon defendant Damodar Valley Corporation by serving the defendant, The Kuljian Corporation, as its "agent". Damodar Valley Corporation has never appeared in the suit and there have been no further steps regarding it taken by plaintiff.
The first twelve counts of the complaint stated claims against both defendants for monies allegedly due plaintiff for structural steel and boiler erection work performed and materials furnished as a subcontractor in the construction of a thermal plant for Damodar Valley Corporation at Bokara, Bihar, India. The 13th and 14th counts alleged tort claims arising out of the first twelve counts. The 15th count alleged slanders by the defendants to plaintiff's title to some real property in India.
Plaintiff conceded that The Kuljian Corporation had no liability under the first twelve counts. These were dismissed on motion of The Kuljian Corporation. The last three counts were also dismissed, subject to leave given plaintiff to amend by stating the dates and places of the charged torts. Such amendment was filed. It alleged that the torts had taken place in India. The defendant's motion to dismiss these counts was renewed. After notice of dismissal for want of prosecution the motion was heard. The district court concluded, inter alia, that the two contracts sued upon contained mandatory provisions for arbitration, that The Kuljian Corporation was entitled to enforce them and that they covered the tort claims. It appeared without dispute that the contracts were both made in India and to be performed in that country.
On the conflict of laws problem as to what law determines the contractual rights and duties here involved, the trial court rightly decided under Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Co., 313 U.S. 487, 61 S.Ct. 1020, 85 L.Ed. 1477 (1941), that Pennsylvania law governs; the court further...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Becker Autoradio U.S.A., Inc. v. Becker Autoradiowerk GmbH
...U.S.A. cites Cook v. Kuljian Corp., 201 F.Supp. 531 (E.D.Pa.), Supplementary op., 209 F.Supp. 478 (E.D.Pa.1962), Aff'd, 317 F.2d 412 (3d Cir. 1963) (per curiam), for the contrary proposition. In that diversity case the court held that the question of the enforceability of an arbitration awa......
-
Chloe Z Fishing Co. v. Odyssey re (London) Ltd.
...Cook v. Kuljian Corp., 201 F.Supp. 531, 535 (E.D.Pa.1962), supplementary op., 209 F.Supp. 478 (E.D.Pa.1962), aff'd 317 F.2d 412 (3d Cir. 1963) (per curiam), as a diversity case in which the court held that the question of the enforceability of an arbitration award in a contract made and per......
-
R. E. Bean Const. Co. v. Middlebury Associates
...interstate or foreign commerce. Cook v. Kuljian Corp., 201 F.Supp. 531, 535 (E.D.Pa.1962), aff'd sub nom., Cook v. Damodar Valley Corp., 317 F.2d 412 (3d Cir. 1963). Neither circumstance has been alleged or proved in this case. Therefore, the Act applies not as supreme federal law, but by c......