Oinoussian Steamship Corp. of Panama v. Sabre Shipping Corp.

Decision Date18 December 1963
Citation224 F. Supp. 807
PartiesIn the Matter of the Arbitration between OINOUSSIAN STEAMSHIP CORP. OF PANAMA, Owners of the M.V. OINOUSSIOS, Petitioner, and SABRE SHIPPING CORPORATION, Respondent.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

Cardillo & Mooney, New York City, for petitioner, Donald F. Mooney, Milton E. Bernhard, New York City, of counsel.

Burlingham, Underwood, Barron, Wright & White, New York City, for respondent, Gerard Harrington, Jr., New York City, of counsel.

WEINFELD, District Judge.

The respondent-charterer opposes confirmation of an award rendered by a majority of the arbitrators in favor of the petitioner-owner in the sum of $15,221.47 on the grounds that:

(1) $1,790.42 thereof was awarded on an issue never submitted to the arbitrators;

(2) $1,828.12 of the award was based upon a mathematical miscalculation or on evidence not introduced at the arbitration hearings, but apparently secured independently; and

(3) $4,562.23 of the award was without evidential support and contrary to the only evidence submitted, the owner's own records.

The petitioner and the respondent entered into a charter party which provided that "any dispute" thereunder shall be submitted to three arbitrators "who shall be commercial men." When the instant disputes arose between the owner and the charterer, a formal submission was agreed to wherein the arbitrators were designated pursuant to the provision contained in the charter party. The submission in the whereas clause noted that "disputes have arisen between the parties," but did not delineate any precise issue to be considered by the arbitrators. Thus, the arbitrators were granted unrestricted authority to pass upon any dispute presented to them and arising under the charter party.

The award now under attack was made after hearings at which the parties were represented by counsel who exchanged briefs, schedules of claims and other information. More than forty exhibits were received in evidence. The proceedings appear to have been conducted on an informal basis; no minutes were kept or are submitted on this motion. The contentions advanced by respondent in opposition to confirmation are challenged by petitioner as factually incorrect; thus, there is charge and countercharge.

As to the first contention that the arbitrators exceeded their authority by making an award on an issue never submitted to them, respondent (the charterer) alleges that after the conclusion of the hearings, opposing counsel, in his brief, referred to the withdrawal of a commission item of $1,790.42 which had previously been credited by the owner to the charterer and requested an award in that amount. Respondent asserts that its proctors objected to the introduction of this item, but the arbitrators allowed it and held that the owner was entitled to revoke the credit. Petitioner (the owner), contrary to respondent's position, insists it was an item in dispute, that it was a major issue in the arbitration, the amount of which could not be established until a final determination, in the arbitration proceeding, of the calculation of hire which itself was another major disputed item, and that respondent had been credited with the commissions on the assumption it would pay them "as is frequently done" based on petitioner's calculations of charter hire. Two exhibits received in evidence at the very first hearing show that the challenged item was presented to and considered by the arbitrators. In any event, the issue appears to be intertwined with the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Trident Technical College v. Lucas & Stubbs, Ltd., 22350
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • June 6, 1985
    ......2 See In re Mercury Constr. Corp. 656 F.2d 933 (4th Cir.1981); Episcopal Housing ... issues and interpretation of law." Oinoussian Steamship Corp. v. Sabre Shipping Corp., 224 ......
  • Grp. III Mgmt., Inc. v. Suncrete of Carolina, Inc.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • September 19, 2018
    ...... (quoting Diapulse Corp. of Am. v. Carba Ltd. , 626 F.2d 1108, 1110 (2d ... at 788 (alteration by court) (quoting Oinoussian Steamship Corp. v. Sabre Shipping Corp. , 224 ......
  • Jacinto v. Egan
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island
    • September 12, 1978
    ...... National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway, 551 F.2d 136 (7th ... Oinoussian Steamship Corp. v. Sabre Shipping Corp., 224 ......
  • Sweeney v. Morganroth
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • June 7, 1978
    ......v. Samuel MORGANROTH d/b/a Moren Realty Corp., Defendant. No. 77 Civil 5318. United States ...1612, 4 L.Ed.2d 1727 (1960); Oinoussian S.S. Corp. of Panama v. Sabre Shipping Corp., 224 ...1966); Oinoussian Steamship......
  • 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