S.A. Wenger & Co. v. Propper Silk Hosiery Mills, Inc.
Decision Date | 16 December 1924 |
Citation | 239 N.Y. 199,146 N.E. 203 |
Parties | S.A. WENGER & CO., INC., v. PROPPER SILK HOSIERY MILLS, INC. |
Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
In the matter of the application of S.A. Wenger & Co., Inc., for an order directing that an arbitration proceed between petitioner and the Proper Silk Hosiery Mills, Inc. From an order of the Appellate Division (209 App.Div. 784, 205 N.Y.S. 566) reversing an order of the Special Term granting said application, the Propper Silk Hosiery Company appeals. Reversed, and order of Special Term affirmed.
Max D. Steuer, and Samuel Gottlieb, both of New York City, for appellant.
Harry M. Marks, of New York City, for respondent.
The petitioner herein sets forth a written contract for the purchase and sale of silk entered into by it with the Proper Silk Hosiery Mills, Inc., which contains the following arbitration clause:
It further alleges that a dispute has arisen between the parties under the contract with respect to certain bales of raw silk. Petitioner asserts that the silk was purchased by it for the account of the Propper Company and marked and appropriated to the contract, stored in petitioner's go-downs at Yokohama at the risk of the Propper Company, and destroyed by earthquake and fire; that petitioner demanded payment of the purchase price, which was refused; that an amicable adjustment has failed; and that the court should order arbitration of the dispute according to the terms of the contract.
The Propper Company contends that under the terms of the contract title did not pass to it until the silk was shipped, and that there is not dispute arising relative to the fulfillment of any of the terms of the contract because as matter of law the terms of the contract have not been fulfilled by petitioner. The Appellate Division has accepted this view of the transaction and denied the motion. It says:
“ ”
[1] But the operation of the rules as to passage of title is subordinate to intention. Standard Casing Co., Inc., v. California Casing Co., 233 N.Y. 413, 416, 135 N.E. 834. The contract refers to “reimbursement” being made by the purchaser prior to the time of shipment, and these words seem to indicate that the petitioner was to purchase the goods for the buyer so that title passed before the duty of shipment arose. Personal Prop. Law (Cons.Laws, ch. 41) §§ 99,100.
[2][3] The contract provides: “Sales governed by Raw Silk Rules and Regulations of the Silk Association of America.” The record does not set forth the rules. They are, however, a part of the contract. They confer rights upon both parties. The parties have agreed...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Exercycle Corp. v. Maratta
...262, 90 N.E.2d 181; Matter of International Ass'n of Machinists (Cutler-Hammer), 297 N.Y. 519, 74 N.E.2d 464; Wenger & Co. v. Propper Silk Hosiery Mills, 239 N.Y. 199, 146 N.E. 203); (3) where the performance which is the subject of the demand for arbitration is prohibited by statute (see M......
-
Reconstruction Finance Corp. v. Harrisons & Crosfield
...6 Of course, many pure issues of "law" may be left for unreviewable decision by the arbitrators. See e.g., Wenger & Co. v. Propper Silk Hosiery Mills, 239 N.Y. 199, 201, 146 N.E. 203; Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Association v. United Casualty Co., 1 Cir., 142 F.2d 390, 393; Corbin, Con......
-
CALIFORNIA PRUNE & APRICOT GROWERS'ASS'N v. Catz Amer. Co.
...alone." See, also, Webster v. Van Allen et al., 217 App. Div. 219, 216 N. Y. S. 552, 554, and S. A. Wenger & Co., Inc., v. Propper Silk Hosiery Mills, Inc., 239 N. Y. 199, 146 N. E. 203, 204. Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals and Federal District Courts in numerous jurisdictions have laid d......
-
New York Mirror v. Potoker
...underlying the asserted dispute. A frivolous claim will not move the court to compel arbitration. S. A. Wenger & Co., Inc., v. Propper Silk Hosiery Mills, Inc., 239 N.Y. 199, 202, 146 N.E. 203. A dispute is not arbitrable if it is grounded on an asserted interpretation of the agreement cont......