Mahoney v. Fisher
| Decision Date | 06 April 1960 |
| Docket Number | Docket 25949.,No. 190,190 |
| Citation | 277 F.2d 5 |
| Parties | James MAHONEY, John L. McFadden and Robert E. Clune, Trustees-Appellants, v. J. B. FISHER, Leon H. Cook and Donald R. McVay, as Trustees, Petitioners-Appellees. Petition of J. B. FISHER, Leon H. Cook and Donald R. McVay, as Trustees, for the Appointment of an Impartial Umpire of the Trustees of the Publishers'-Pressmen's Welfare Fund. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
John R. Harold, New York City (Harold, Luca, Persky & Mozer, New York City, on the brief), for trustees-appellants.
John R. Schoemer, Jr., New York City (Townley, Updike, Carter & Rodgers, New York City, on the brief), for petitioners-appellees.
Before MOORE, Circuit Judge, and SMITH and HERLANDS, District Judges.
The appellants are three union-designated trustees, the appellees three employer-designated trustees of an employee welfare fund established under the provisions of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, section 302(c) (5) (B), 61 Stat. 157, 29 U.S.C. § 186(c) (5) (B). The union is the New York Printing Pressmen's Union No. 1. The employer-designated trustees petitioned for the appointment of an impartial umpire to resolve a deadlocked dispute between the two groups of trustees. The district court granted the application from which order the employee-designated trustees appeal. They assert that no arbitrable dispute exists and hence as a matter of law arbitration would be futile.
The question is whether a payment of $600 should be made by the trustees to Despard & Company for special services as insurance brokers. Appellants claim that the services of Despard & Company had been terminated prior to the rendering of the services and that, even if performed, they have no right to compensation because there was no written memorandum signed by the party to be charged as required by section 129, subd. 1, of the New York Insurance Law, McKinney's Consol.Laws, c. 28.
The district court held that paragraph 10E1 of the Trust Agreement was not to be construed "as relating only to questions arising out of action conceded to have been properly authorized" and rejected "the narrow construction urged by respondents." This decision appears to be sound. The facts relating to the employment of Despard & Company and the services, if any, rendered can all be developed before the impartial umpire, who can resolve on the merits the question of whether compensation for services should be made. The district court left the umpire free to determine the effect of section 129 on the controversy. This section does not make illegal the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Citrin v. Erikson, 95 Civ. 9004 (DNE).
...F.2d 1157 (9th Cir.1983); Farmer v. Fisher, 586 F.2d 1226 (8th Cir.1978); Ader v. Hughes, 570 F.2d 303 (10th Cir.1978); Mahoney v. Fisher, 277 F.2d 5 (2d Cir.1960). The Second Circuit defines an issue of trust administration as any issue which the trustees have authority to decide under the......
-
Fujikawa v. Gushiken
...all issues that the trustees have authority to decide by virtue of the terms and provisions of the trust instruments. See Mahoney v. Fisher, 277 F.2d 5 (2d Cir.1960); Barret v. Miller, 276 F.2d 429 (2d Cir.1960). Under this interpretation of section 302(c)(5), it is clear that disputes over......
-
Hawkins v. Bennett
...interpreted "administration" to include all issues which the trustees have the power to decide under the trust agreement. Mahoney v. Fisher, 277 F.2d 5 (2d Cir.1960); Barrett v. Miller, 276 F.2d 429 (2d Cir.1960); see also Singleton v. Abramson, 336 F.Supp. 754 (S.D.N.Y.1971). Under this br......
-
Ader v. Hughes
...We are not dealing with a dispute as to proper disbursement policy on a question not anticipated by the parties (Mahoney v. Fisher, 277 F.2d 5 (2d Cir. 1960)), or a matter left open to the discretion of the trustees by the terms of the trust agreement. Petition of Feldman, supra. Such a dis......