Osborne & Thurlow v. Hirsch & Co.
| Decision Date | 30 January 1958 |
| Citation | 172 N.Y.S.2d 522,10 Misc.2d 225 |
| Parties | OSBORNE & THURLOW, a partnership, Plaintiff, v. HIRSCH & CO., a partnership, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Raymond J. McGrover, New York City, for plaintiff.
Guggenheimer & Untermyer, New York City, for defendant.
This motion pursuant to section 1451 of the Civil Practice Act, to stay the action until arbitration has been had, raises two questions.
Both parties were member firms of the New York Stock Exchange. The constitution of the exchange provides for arbitration of disputes between member firms and there is no claim that an agreement to arbitrate in this form is not binding. However plaintiff asserts that it is not bound because it is no longer a member firm. According to the complaint the acts giving rise to the claim took place in September 1957. On the last day of that month, plaintiff, a partnership, dissolved. The partners became members of other member firms. Obviously the acts of which it complains occurred while it was still a member. If it persists as an entity for the purpose of suing beyond the date of its dissolution, it also persists as a member subject to the constitution of the exchange. This ground for resisting arbitration is not well taken.
The precise wording of the arbitration provision is:
.
It is to be noted that a distinction is made between what is arbitrable between members and what is arbitrable between a member and a non-member. In the latter case it is any controversy arising out of the business or dissolution of the member. In the former it is any controversy.
The claim here is that a 'representative' of defendant wrote a letter concerning the financial condition of the plaintiff and that this letter was libelous. A 'controversy' is any difference which can be the subject of a suit at law or equity (See Sect. 2, Art. III, U.S.Constitution. 'The judicial Power shall extend * * * to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States' etc.). While we do not usually associate a claim for libel with arbitration there...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. Gilligan, Will & Co.
...arbitration constitute an agreement to arbitrate which is binding upon both Cohn and Eastman. See Osborne & Thurlow v. Hirsch & Co., 10 Misc.2d 225, 172 N.Y.S. 2d 522, 523 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1958). In addition, the contract involving the stock transaction here in question embodies the arbitration ......
-
Litchfield Fabrics, Inc. v. Rosewood Fabrics, Inc.
...between the parties to bring it within the broad arbitration rules of the Stock Exchange. The court cited Osborne & Thurlow v. Hirsch & Co., 10 Misc.2d 225, 172 N.Y.S.2d 522, which had held a claim for libel respecting the financial condition of the plaintiff to be a controversy within the ......
-
Kelleher v. Reich
...(9th Cir. 1975); Legg, Mason & Co. v. Mackall & Coe, Inc., 351 F.Supp. 1367, 1371-72 (D.D.C.1972); Osborne & Thurlow v. Hirsch & Co., 10 Misc.2d 225, 227, 172 N.Y.S.2d 522, 523 (Sup.Ct.1958). The cases cited by plaintiff as creating an exception for securities fraud claims, Allegaert v. Per......
-
Legg, Mason & Company, Inc. v. Mackall & Coe, Inc.
...the defendants again direct the attention of the Court to an opinion issued by a New York court. In Osborne & Thurlow v. Hirsch & Co., 10 Misc.2d 225, 172 N.Y.S.2d 522 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1958), the Supreme Court of New York County held that a claim for libel was a controversy within the provision ......