Krauss Bros. Lumber Co. v. Louis Bossert & Sons, No. 190.

CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
Writing for the CourtL. HAND, SWAN, and CHASE, Circuit
Citation62 F.2d 1004
PartiesKRAUSS BROS. LUMBER CO. v. LOUIS BOSSERT & SONS, Inc.
Docket NumberNo. 190.
Decision Date06 February 1933

62 F.2d 1004 (1933)

KRAUSS BROS. LUMBER CO.
v.
LOUIS BOSSERT & SONS, Inc.

No. 190.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

February 6, 1933.


62 F.2d 1005

Maurice B. Rich, of New York City, for appellant.

Wickes & Neilson, of New York City (Herman E. Riddell and Gabriel E. Torre, both of New York City, of counsel), for appellee.

Before L. HAND, SWAN, and CHASE, Circuit Judges.

L. HAND, Circuit Judge.

The plaintiff is a corporation, organized under the laws of Washington; the defendant another, organized under those of New York. On March 11, 1930, the parties tentatively agreed orally for the sale by the plaintiff to the defendant of three hundred thousand feet of "small timbers," and between three hundred and three hundred and fifty-thousand feet of "underflooring." The plaintiff confirmed the talk by letter on the same day, asking for "specifications * * * on the small timbers." This the defendant answered, giving such "specifications," but without exactly allocating the quantities to each size. It asked for shipment on April first. The plaintiff replied on March fourteenth by a document called an "Order Acknowledgment." This contained a detailed statement of the terms of sale, including credit, date of shipment (April), a clause for arbitration by "the Arbitration committee of any lumber association purchaser may elect," and other provisions. It definitely allocated the quantity for each size of the "small timbers," which were to be shipped from Seattle, and it omitted the "underflooring." It concluded: "Unless notified to the contrary at once, order will be executed as written above and is final and binding on both of us." The defendant kept this paper without objection, and the plaintiff shipped from Seattle three hundred thousand feet of "small timbers," distributed by size and quantity according to its terms, which arrived in New York on June eleventh, and which the defendant accepted. In December, some months after expiration of the stipulated credit, the plaintiff sued at law for the purchase price in the state court. The defendant answered, denying delivery, and alleging late shipment as a defence and counterclaim. It also pleaded that the contract had provided for arbitration, and that the defendant "had offered and by its answer renews its offer to submit the differences or controversies to arbitration." The plaintiff replied to the counterclaim in January, 1931, and noticed the cause for trial in March, the defendant serving a cross notice on the following day. In July, the plaintiff unsuccessfully moved for a voluntary dismissal, and on August sixth wrote the defendant accepting its offer to arbitrate contained in the answer, and asking it to select the arbitrator. The defendant refused and this suit, specifically to enforce the contract, followed on August twenty-fourth. The judge granted an order compelling the defendant to arbitrate and appointing arbitrators, and the defendant appealed.

We held in Marchant v. Mead-Morrison Co., 29 F.(2d) 40, that such a suit could not be removed to a federal court after the arbitrators had been appointed and had made their award, because the proceeding is single until its conclusion. It does not follow that the order appointing arbitrators is not appealable under section 225 of title 28. The purpose of arbitration is essentially an escape from judicial trial; the court takes a hand only so far as some sanction is necessary to compel performance of the agreement to adopt the means provided. It is true that under section 9 of title 9 (USCA) the successful party may enforce the award by judgment, on which execution will go under section 13. But the judgment follows automatically unless the award has been vacated under section 10, and that is an independent application. So far as the arbitration proceeding itself is concerned, the last deliberative action of the court is the appointment of the arbitrators, who thereupon take over the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
57 practice notes
  • Mottolese v. Kaufman, No. 21334.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • July 6, 1949
    ...the teaching of all such decisions including one rendered by my colleagues i. e., Krauss Bros. Lumber Co. v. Louis Bossert & Sons, 2 Cir., 62 F.2d 1004, In support of their ruling, my colleagues rely on (1) the doctrine of forum non conveniens and (2) that of multiplicity of suits. Combinin......
  • Southland Corporation v. Keating, No. 82-500
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • January 23, 1984
    ...supra, 388 U.S., at 420 and n. 24, 87 S.Ct., at 1814 (Black, J., dissenting); Krauss Bros. Lumber Co. v. Louis Bossert & Sons, Inc., 62 F.2d 1004, 1006 (CA2 1933) (L. Hand, J.) 10. The contention is made that the Court's interpretation of § 2 of the Act renders §§ 3 and 4 "largely superfluo......
  • Hamilton Life Ins. Co. of NY v. Republic Nat. Life Ins. Co., No. 67 Civ. 4855.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • October 17, 1968
    ...402, 408 (2d Cir. 1959), cert. dismissed, 364 U.S. 801, 81 S.Ct. 27, 5 L.Ed.2d 37 (1960); Krauss Bros. Lumber Co. v. Louis Bossert & Sons, 62 F.2d 1004, 1006 (2d Cir. 1933) (L. Hand, J.); Metro Industrial Painting Corp. v. Terminal Construction Co., 287 F.2d 382, 384 (2d Cir.), cert. denied......
  • Giangrande v. Shearson Lehman/EF Hutton, Civ. A. No. 89-2858-T.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of Massachusetts
    • September 15, 1992
    ...Keating, 465 U.S. 1, 15 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 852, 861 n. 9, 79 L.Ed.2d 1 (1984); see also Krauss Bros. Lumber Co. v. Louis Bossert & Sons Inc., 62 F.2d 1004 (2d Cir.1933). A party seeking to enforce rights created by the Arbitration Act must do so in the state courts unless federal jurisdiction ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
57 cases
  • Mottolese v. Kaufman, No. 21334.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • July 6, 1949
    ...the teaching of all such decisions including one rendered by my colleagues i. e., Krauss Bros. Lumber Co. v. Louis Bossert & Sons, 2 Cir., 62 F.2d 1004, In support of their ruling, my colleagues rely on (1) the doctrine of forum non conveniens and (2) that of multiplicity of suits. Combinin......
  • Southland Corporation v. Keating, No. 82-500
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • January 23, 1984
    ...supra, 388 U.S., at 420 and n. 24, 87 S.Ct., at 1814 (Black, J., dissenting); Krauss Bros. Lumber Co. v. Louis Bossert & Sons, Inc., 62 F.2d 1004, 1006 (CA2 1933) (L. Hand, J.) 10. The contention is made that the Court's interpretation of § 2 of the Act renders §§ 3 and 4 "largely superfluo......
  • Hamilton Life Ins. Co. of NY v. Republic Nat. Life Ins. Co., No. 67 Civ. 4855.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • October 17, 1968
    ...402, 408 (2d Cir. 1959), cert. dismissed, 364 U.S. 801, 81 S.Ct. 27, 5 L.Ed.2d 37 (1960); Krauss Bros. Lumber Co. v. Louis Bossert & Sons, 62 F.2d 1004, 1006 (2d Cir. 1933) (L. Hand, J.); Metro Industrial Painting Corp. v. Terminal Construction Co., 287 F.2d 382, 384 (2d Cir.), cert. denied......
  • Giangrande v. Shearson Lehman/EF Hutton, Civ. A. No. 89-2858-T.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of Massachusetts
    • September 15, 1992
    ...Keating, 465 U.S. 1, 15 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 852, 861 n. 9, 79 L.Ed.2d 1 (1984); see also Krauss Bros. Lumber Co. v. Louis Bossert & Sons Inc., 62 F.2d 1004 (2d Cir.1933). A party seeking to enforce rights created by the Arbitration Act must do so in the state courts unless federal jurisdiction ......
  • 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