Hyatt v. Eckel Valve Co.

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals
Writing for the CourtFOX
Citation336 P.2d 551,169 Cal.App.2d 35
PartiesMatter of the Arbitration between Walter J. HYATT, Petitioner and Respondent, v. ECKEL VALVE COMPANY, Defendant and Appellant. Civ. 23420.
Decision Date23 March 1959

Page 551

336 P.2d 551
169 Cal.App.2d 35
Matter of the Arbitration between Walter J. HYATT, Petitioner and Respondent,
v.
ECKEL VALVE COMPANY, Defendant and Appellant.
Civ. 23420.
District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California.
March 23, 1959.

[169 Cal.App.2d 36] Franklin L. Knox, Jr., George O. West, Los Angeles, for appellant.

Alef & Schnitzer and Arthur Alef, Beverly Hills, for respondent.

FOX, Presiding Justice.

This is an appeal by the defendant from an order confirming an arbitration award, from the judgment entered thereon, and from the order denying its motion to vacate the award.

The controversy submitted to the arbitrators grew out of a letter-agreement of September 11, 1956, by which the defendant company gave Hyatt the exclusive right to sell the company's products in California and Arizona upon certain specified terms. Under paragraph 4 of the agreement, Hyatt's compensation was 5 per cent commission on net sales. He was to receive what might be termed a drawing account of $1,000 per month, plus mileage and other travel and entertainment expenses. Paragraph 2. By paragraph 3 it was provided that: 'If at the time of termination of this agreement, for any reasons other than formation of a jointly owned corporation, the commissions due Mr. Hyatt are not equal to the sums advanced under Item 2, above, the sums advanced shall be considered as remuneration for services rendered, and Eckel Valve Company shall have no further claim for reimbursement from Hyatt.' Paragraph 5 stated: 'This contract may be terminated without cause, by either party, upon thirty (30) days written notice. In event of such termination, neither party shall have

Page 552

any claims upon the other, for any reason, except that Hyatt shall receive his full commission fee on all orders from his territory on the books at the time of termination; * * *.' Paragraph 6 provided that any disputes would be resolved by arbitration.

On December 5, 1957, the company sent Hyatt a telegram saying: 'Advise representation agreement terminated, effective January 4, 1958.' That telegram was confirmed by [169 Cal.App.2d 37] letter from the company which read: 'Confirming our telegram of this date, please be advised that Fckel Valve Co. hereby terminates our agreement dated September 11, 1956, in accordance with paragraph 5, to be effective January 4, 1958. A revised agreement may be offered for your consideration prior to January 4, 1958.'

Hyatt continued with his sales representation of defendant's products until the January 4, 1958, termination date. On that date he had accrued commissions of $9,668.12 which were unpaid. The company refused to pay these commissions so Hyatt instituted arbitration proceedings as provided in the letter-agreement.

It was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • National Marble Co. v. Bricklayers & Allied Craftsmen
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 26 Agosto 1986
    ...effect an appeal from the judgment confirming the award and is reviewable on appeal from the judgment. (Hyatt v. Eckel Valve Co. (1959) 169 Cal.App.2d 35, 39, 336 P.2d 551; cf. Jordan v. Pacific Auto. Ins. Co. (1965) 232 Cal.App.2d 127, 129, 42 Cal.Rptr. 556.) Accordingly, National's appeal......
  • Hohn, Application of
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 21 Agosto 1964
    ...Confirming[229 Cal.App.2d 338] Award of Arbitrators that appellant appeals in this matter. This court said in Hyatt v. Eckel Valve Co., 169 Cal.App.2d 35, 39, 336 P.2d 551, 553, that 'if a judgment has been entered upon an order confirming the award, there is no appeal from the order but on......
  • People v. Wilkins, Cr. 6478
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 23 Marzo 1959
    ...the trial court in concluding that the defendant has violated the terms of his probation, and Page 545 in revoking the same. The [169 Cal.App.2d 35] appellant, having pleaded guilty to the petty theft charge, with the prior, cannot now contend that his probation on the attempted burglary ch......
  • Peirona v. Nguyen, A126551
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 16 Diciembre 2010
    ...legal authority demonstrates that arbitrators have the power to proceed by way of an offer of proof. (Hyatt v. Eckel Valve Co. (1959) 169 Cal.App.2d 35, 38.) In sum, we reject all of Plaintiffs' challenges to the arbitration award and thus affirm the trial court's order confirming the award......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • National Marble Co. v. Bricklayers & Allied Craftsmen
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 26 Agosto 1986
    ...effect an appeal from the judgment confirming the award and is reviewable on appeal from the judgment. (Hyatt v. Eckel Valve Co. (1959) 169 Cal.App.2d 35, 39, 336 P.2d 551; cf. Jordan v. Pacific Auto. Ins. Co. (1965) 232 Cal.App.2d 127, 129, 42 Cal.Rptr. 556.) Accordingly, National's appeal......
  • Hohn, Application of
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 21 Agosto 1964
    ...Confirming[229 Cal.App.2d 338] Award of Arbitrators that appellant appeals in this matter. This court said in Hyatt v. Eckel Valve Co., 169 Cal.App.2d 35, 39, 336 P.2d 551, 553, that 'if a judgment has been entered upon an order confirming the award, there is no appeal from the order but on......
  • People v. Wilkins, Cr. 6478
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 23 Marzo 1959
    ...the trial court in concluding that the defendant has violated the terms of his probation, and Page 545 in revoking the same. The [169 Cal.App.2d 35] appellant, having pleaded guilty to the petty theft charge, with the prior, cannot now contend that his probation on the attempted burglary ch......
  • Peirona v. Nguyen, A126551
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 16 Diciembre 2010
    ...legal authority demonstrates that arbitrators have the power to proceed by way of an offer of proof. (Hyatt v. Eckel Valve Co. (1959) 169 Cal.App.2d 35, 38.) In sum, we reject all of Plaintiffs' challenges to the arbitration award and thus affirm the trial court's order confirming the award......
  • 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