Gores v. Rosenthal

Decision Date28 May 1963
Citation192 A.2d 210,150 Conn. 554
CourtConnecticut Supreme Court
PartiesLandis GORES v. Richard L. ROSENTHAL. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut

David S. Maclay, Bridgeport, for appellant (plaintiff).

Francis J. McNamara, Jr., Stamford, with whom, on the brief, were Walter B. Lockwood and Clifford R. Oviatt, Jr., Stamford, for appellee (defendant).

Before BALDWIN, C. J., and KING, MURPHY, SHEA and ALCORN, JJ.

MURPHY, Associate Justice.

The plaintiff, an architect, entered into a written contract with the defendant, a property owner, on October 23, 1952, under which he contracted to render architectural services in the design and construction of a substantial residence, with certain appurtenances, for the defendant. For these services the defendant agreed to pay the plaintiff, in percentages at certain stages of the work, a basic fee of $7000, and in addition to reimburse him for the specific services of consultants. Paragraph thirteen of the contract provided: 'Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this contract, or the breach thereof, shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the Rules of the American Arbitration Association, and judgment upon the award rendered by the Arbitrator may be entered in any Court having jurisdiction thereof.'

In this action, by complaint dated March 25, 1959, the plaintiff sought an order directing the defendant to proceed to arbitrate the question whether a balance of $1750 was due the plaintiff for services rendered prior to April, 1953. The defendant, in an affirmative defense in his answer and in a cross complaint filed therewith, asserted that he was ready and willing to arbitrate any dispute arising out of or relating to the contract or the breach thereof but the plaintiff had neglected and refused to perform according to the agreement for arbitration. The trial court rendered judgment on November 7, 1961, directing the parties to proceed forthwith with arbitration of any and all claims and matters in dispute, presently existing, arising out of or relating to the contract between them dated October 23, 1952, in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association. The plaintiff has appealed.

Although it may seem paradoxical that a party who affirmatively seeks arbitration should attempt to thwart a judgment directing that procedure, recourse to the record in Gores v. Rosenthal, 148 Conn. 218, 169 A.2d 639, provides the answer. In that action, which will hereinafter be referred to as the first case and involves the same parties, the plaintiff, on July 13, 1956 brought suit to recover damages of $25,000 for architectural services allegedly rendered to the defendant pursuant to a request made on or about March 26, 1953. A-394 Rec. & Briefs 68. The defendant denied the allegations of the complaint and in a counterclaim alleged that the only contract between the parties was the one involved in the present case and that the defendant was willing to arbitrate under it, and the defendant sought an order staying proceedings in the first case and ordering arbitration under the 1952 contract. Id., back of p. 75. It was not until after the plaintiff was unsuccessful in expunging the counterclaim in the first case that he instituted this one. After much legal maneuvering in the first case, action therein was stayed by the trial court. An appeal from that order was dismissed. Gores v. Rosenthal, supra.

Arbitration is the voluntary submission, by the interested parties, of an existing or future dispute to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • Corey v. Avco-Lycoming Division, Avco Corp.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • 5 July 1972
    ...charter of the entire arbitration proceedings and defines and limits the issues to be decided by the arbitrators.' Gores v. Rosenthal, 150 Conn. 554, 557, 192 A.2d 210, 211. If, as in this case, the contract does not require the arbitrators to apply legal standards, 'arbitrators are not req......
  • Fink v. Golenbock
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • 23 July 1996
    ...interested parties, of an existing or future dispute to a disinterested person or persons for final determination.' Gores v. Rosenthal, 150 Conn. 554, 557, 192 A.2d 210 [1963]." Gary Excavating, Inc. v. North Haven, 164 Conn. 119, 121, 318 A.2d 84 (1972); see 4 Am.Jur.2d, [supra, § 85]. The......
  • Comprehensive Orthopaedics v. Axtmayer
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • 20 October 2009
    ...of law and fact consistent with the submission"), aff'd, 472 U.S. 703, 105 S.Ct. 2914, 86 L.Ed.2d 557 (1985); Gores v. Rosenthal, 150 Conn. 554, 558, 192 A.2d 210 (1963) ("Arbitration may or may not be a desirable substitute for trials in courts . . . [b]ut when [the parties] have adopted i......
  • Mso, LLC v. Desimone
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • 12 August 2014
    ...It is intended to avoid the formalities, the delay, the expense and vexation of ordinary litigation.” Gores v. Rosenthal, 150 Conn. 554, 557, 192 A.2d 210 (1963). When parties have a valid arbitration agreement, “the courts are empowered to direct compliance with its provisions.” Id. To thi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT