Dewart v. Northeastern Gas Transmission Co.
| Decision Date | 19 February 1953 |
| Citation | 95 A.2d 381,139 Conn. 512 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | DEWART v. NORTHEASTERN GAS TRANSMISSION CO. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
Daniel F. Wheeler, Bridgeport, for the appellant (defendant).
C. Driscoll Grimes, Greenwich, for the appellee (plaintiff).
Before BROWN, C. J., and JENNINGS, BALDWIN, INGLIS and O'SULLIVAN, JJ.
This case and five other cases combined into a single appeal, Practice Book, § 382, originated as applications by the plaintiffs to the Superior Court under § 8153 of the General Statutes, each seeking an order directing the defendant to proceed with arbitration pursuant to a written arbitration agreement. The agreement, signed by the parties, named the arbitrators. The purpose of the arbitration is to determine the damages resulting to the respective properties of the plaintiffs in the six cases from the construction thereon of defendant's pipe line.
The defendant in each case filed an answer admitting the allegations of the application. The answer included a special defense and a cross complaint alleging facts which it is claimed tend to cast reasonable doubt upon the fairness and impartiality of one of the arbitrators named in the agreement, thereby rendering him unfit to serve as arbitrator. The defendant in its special defense denied the right of the plaintiffs to an order directing the defendant to proceed with arbitration unless and until this arbitrator had been removed and replaced. In its cross complaint the defendant asked the court to remove the arbitrator and appoint a fair and impartial arbitrator in his place and stead.
Each plaintiff filed a demurrer to the special defense and cross complaint which was sustained and, upon the refusal of the defendant to plead further, an order was entered directing the defendant to proceed with the arbitration. The defendant thereupon filed an appeal to this court from the order, assigning as error the sustaining of the demurrer to the special defense and cross complaint. The plaintiffs thereupon moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the order directing the defendant to proceed with the arbitration was not a final judgment.
An appeal lies only from a final judgment. General Statutes § 8003; Maltbie, Conn.App.Proc., § 6. One of the tests to determine whether an order is final so as to permit an appeal is to ascertain whether it terminates a separate and distinct proceeding. Examples of such proceedings will be found in Potter v. Appleby, 136 Conn. 641, 643, 73 A.2d 819; Wardell v. Town of Killingly, 96 Conn. 718, 722, 115 A. 539; Sachs v. Nussenbaum, 92 Conn....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Horsey v. Horsey
...to Maryland's, have agreed that an order to arbitrate is a final ruling and may be appealed. See, e.g., Dewart v. Northeastern Gas Transmission Co., 139 Conn. 512, 95 A.2d 381 (1953) (order compelling arbitration terminates a "separate and distinct proceeding" and is therefore appealable); ......
-
Kremer v. Rural Cmty. Ins. Co., S-09-900, S-09-901.
...v. Chronic Pain Associates, 904 P.2d 73 (Okla.1995). 29State ex rel. Bruning, supra note 5. 30See, Dewart v. Northeastern Gas Transmission Co., 139 Conn. 512, 95 A.2d 381 (1953); Simmons, supra note 22; Evansville-Vanderburgh Sch. v. Teachers Ass'n, 494 N.E.2d 321 (Ind.App.1986); Iowa Mgmt.......
-
Peter Kiewit Sons' Co. v. Port of Portland
...Some other courts, under still different statutory provisions, have held to the contrary. See, e. g., Dewart v. Northeastern Gas Transmission Co., 139 Conn. 512, 95 A.2d 381 (1953); In re Wilaka Construction Co., 17 N.Y.2d 195, 269 N.Y.S.2d 697, 216 N.E.2d 696 (1966) (citing previous New Yo......
-
Skidmore, Owings and Merrill v. Connecticut General Life Ins. Co.
...upon the award of the arbitrators as such. Sturges, Commercial Arbitrations and Awards, p. 676; see Dewart v. Northeastern Gas Transmission Co., 139 Conn. 512, 514, 95 A.2d 381 (1953). 'The parties to an arbitration set up their own tribunal and rules of procedure. In re Curtis-Castle Arbit......