Nederlandse Erts-Tankersmaatschappij v. Isbrandtsen Co.

Decision Date18 December 1964
Docket NumberDocket 28970.,No. 122,122
Citation339 F.2d 440
PartiesNEDERLANDSE ERTS-TANKERSMAATSCHAPPIJ, N.V., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ISBRANDTSEN COMPANY, Inc. and Jacob Isbrandtsen, Defendants-Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

Clement C. Rinehart, New York City (Kirlin, Campbell & Keating, New York City), for appellant.

Leonard S. Leaman, New York City (Lord, Day & Lord, New York City), for appellee Isbrandtsen Co., Inc.

Bernard B. Polak, New York City (Lotterman & Weiser, Joseph Lotterman, New York City, of counsel), for appellee Jacob Isbrandtsen.

Before LUMBARD, Chief Judge, and HAYS and MARSHALL, Circuit Judges.

HAYS, Circuit Judge:

This action was brought on an alleged contract of guaranty by defendants of performance of a charter party between plaintiffs and a third party, Canadian Foreign Steamship Company, Ltd.

The charter party contains a clause providing for arbitration of "any and all differences and disputes of whatsoever nature arising out of this Charter." Plaintiff claiming that Canadian Foreign has failed to pay the agreed upon charter hire, has instituted arbitration proceedings against Canadian Foreign.

In the district court the defendants moved for a stay pending arbitration and the motion was granted under Section 3 of the United States Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 3 (1958).1

Granting of the stay cannot be justified under the terms of the Arbitration Act. Defendants are not parties to the arbitration agreement. The issues of the present action are not referable to arbitration between the parties.

However, the district court had inherent power to grant the requested stay. While the power to stay has ordinarily been exercised in situations in which another proceeding was pending in the state courts, see, e. g., Milk Drivers Union v. Dairymen's League Co-op. Ass'n, 304 F.2d 913 (2d Cir. 1962); Mottolese v. Kaufman, 176 F.2d 301 (2d Cir. 1949), a stay may also be appropriate where the pending proceeding is an arbitration in which issues involved in the case may be determined.

The conditions under which such a stay may be granted were stated by Mr. Justice Cardozo:

"The power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.
How this can best be done calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance. * * * True, the suppliant for a stay must make out a clear case of hardship or inequity in being required to go forward, if there is even a fair possibility that the stay for which he prays will work damage to some one else. Only in rare circumstances will a litigant in one cause be compelled to stand aside while a litigant in another settles the rule of law that will define the rights of both." Landis v. North Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-255, 57 S.Ct. 163, 166, 81 L.Ed. 153 (1936).

The plaintiff points out that the arbitration between Canadian Foreign and the plaintiff, which is taking place in London pursuant to a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
123 cases
  • Jim Burke Automotive, Inc. v. Beavers
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • September 29, 1995
    ...Co., 730 F.2d 99 (3d Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 831, 105 S.Ct. 118, 83 L.Ed.2d 61 (1984); Nederlandse Erts-Tankersmaatschappij, N.V. v. Isbrandtsen Co., 339 F.2d 440, 442 (2d Cir.1964); Liberty University, Inc. v. Kemper Securities Group, Inc., 758 F.Supp. 1148 (W.D.Va.1991); Pioneer......
  • In re Actions
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • September 16, 2013
    ...for counsel, and for litigants.’ ” WorldCrisa Corp., 129 F.3d at 75 (quoting Nederlandse Erts–Tankersmaatschappij, N.V. v. Isbrandtsen Co., 339 F.2d 440, 441 (2d Cir.1964)). Plaintiffs concede that a stay will not “hamper the progress of the proceeding,” and the Court concludes that Aggrega......
  • National Iranian Oil Co. v. Mapco Intern., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • December 28, 1992
    ...pending arbitration is not dependent on statutory authority, but is inherent in the district court); Nederlandse Ests-Tankersmaatschappij v. Isbrandtsen Co., 339 F.2d 440, 441 (2d Cir.1964) (same). Because the petition only can be filed in a district court, the court itself must determine w......
  • U.S. v. Stein
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • September 6, 2006
    ...No. 87 Civ. 5715(JFK), 1989 WL 71200, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Tune 22, 1989) (citing Nederlandse Erts-Tankersmaatschappij, N.V. v. Isbrandtsen Co., 339 F.2d 440, 442 (2d Cir.1964)). 47. 9 U.S.C. § 2. See also Doctor's Assoc., Inc. v. Casarotto, 517 U.S. 681, 686-87, 116 S.Ct. 1652, 134 L.Ed.2d 902 ......
  • 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