Prosperity Co., Inc. v. American Laundry Machinery Co.

• Decision Date: 29 May 1947
• Citation: Prosperity Co. v. American Laundry Mach. Co., 297 N.Y. 486, 74 N.E.2d 188 (N.Y. 1947)
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: Prosperity Co., Inc. v. American Laundry Machinery Co.

297 N.Y. 486

74 N.E.2d 188

PROSPERITY COMPANY, Inc., Appellant,

v.AMERICAN LAUNDRY MACHINERY CO., Respondent.

Court of Appeals of New York.

May 29, 1947.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, 271 App.Div. 622, 67 N.Y.S.2d 669.

Action involving validity of arbitration proceedings by the Prosperity Company, Inc., against American Laundry Machinery Company. The plaintiff is a New York corporation, and the defendant is a corporation origanized under the laws of the State of Ohio, and on May 15, 1911, filed a certificate to do business in the State of New York, which certificate has never been revoked or surrendered.

Prior to January 24, 1936, the parties engaged as manufacturers of power laundry machines, had disputes with each other as to the use of certain patents and out of such disputes arose much litigation which was pending on January 24, 1936. On that date in order to compromise the disputes and litigation between the parties, they entered into an agreement for the termination of the litigation and the disputes and claims, and by such agreement established a plan of use by either party of certain of the patented machinery and for the payment of royalties under such use. Provision was made in the agreement for arbitration of any controversies which might arise in performance of or interpretation of the agreement, and such agreement which was to be for the lifetime of a disputed Davis patent contained provisions for arbitration which provided that the party initiating arbitration could proceed either under the arbitration laws of New York or of Ohio by giving the other party written notice thereof.

Certain disputes having arisen as to matters covered by the agreement of January 24, 1936, the defendant made demand in writing on January 28, 1943, on plaintiff for arbitration proceedings.

The Special Term directed...