Shanferoke Coal Supply Corporation v. Westchester Service Corporation, No. 211
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | BRANDEIS |
| Citation | 55 S.Ct. 313,79 L.Ed. 583,293 U.S. 449 |
| Parties | SHANFEROKE COAL & SUPPLY CORPORATION v. WESTCHESTER SERVICE CORPORATION |
| Docket Number | No. 211 |
| Decision Date | 07 January 1935 |
v.
WESTCHESTER SERVICE CORPORATION.
Messrs. Alfred B. Nathan and George C. Levin, both of New York City, for petitioner.
Mr. Ernest E. Wheeler, of New York City, for respondent.
Page 450
Mr. Justice BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court.
This action was brought by the Shanferoke Coal & Supply Corporation, a citizen of Delaware, in the federal court for Southern New York against the Westchester Service Corporation, a citizen of the latter state. The declaration alleged that the defendant had by a contract in writing agreed to purchase from the plaintiff a large quantity of coal to be taken in installments throughout a period of years, and that the defendant had, after accepting part of the coal, repudiated the contract. The defendant set up in its answer, as a special defense, that prior to the commencement of the action a dispute had arisen concerning the construction of the contract, the rights and duties of the respective parties thereunder, and its performance, that the contract contained an arbitration clause, and that prior to the commencement of the action the defendant had notified the plaintiff of its readiness and willingness to submit the dispute to arbitration and ever since had been ready and willing to do so, but that the plaintiff had refused to proceed with the arbitration. The defendant then moved that the action, and all proceedings therein, be stayted until an arbitration should be had in accordance with the terms of the contract sued on. The motion was heard on affidavits and counter affidavits.
The arbitration clause is as follows:
'In case any dispute should arise between the Buyer and Seller as to the performance of any of the terms of this agreement, such dispute shall be arbitrated and the cost thereof shall be borne equally by both parties. The Buyer and the Seller shall each appoint one arbitrator and the two arbitrators so appointed shall select a third arbitrator and the decision of a majority of the three arbitrators shall be final and conclusive on both parties.
Page 451
In case for any reason any such arbitration shall fail to proceed to a final award, either party may apply to the Supreme Court of the State of New York for an order compelling the specific performance of this arbitration agreement in accordance with the arbitration laws of the State of New York.'
The District Court interpreted the clause as making the arbitration enforceable only in state courts of New York; and on that ground denied the stay. On an appeal from the order of denial, the Court of Appeals held that, even if the clause should be so interpreted, section 3 of the United States Arbitration Act (9 USCA § 3) authorized the stay.1 It therefore reversed the order and directed the District Court to grant the stay, with leave to that court 'to vacate it at any time, should it appear that the defendant is in default in proceeding with the arbitration.' 70 F.(2d) 297, 299. This Court granted certiorari 293 U.S. 541, 55 S.Ct. 95, 79 L.Ed. —-.
First. The order of the District Court denying the stay was not a final judgment appealable under section 128 of the Judicial Code, as amended (28 USCA § 225). Being an interlocutory order, it was appealable to the Circuit Court of Appeals under section 129, as amended (28 USCA § 227), only if the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wren v. Sletten Const. Co., No. 77-2092
...or when invocation of the arbitration agreement raises an equitable defense. Shanferoke Coal & Supply Corp. v. Westchester Serv. Corp., 293 U.S. 449, 452, 55 S.Ct. 313, 314, 79 L.Ed. 583 (1935). There can be no doubt that the action brought by the plaintiffs for damages for breach of contra......
-
Ex parte Alabama Oxygen Co., Inc., BORG-WARNER
...over litigation to ease the congestion of the courts. The citation to Shanferoke Coal & Supply Corp. v. Westchester Serv. Corp., 293 U.S. 449, 453 [55 S.Ct. 313, 315, 79 L.Ed. 583] (1935), was apparently to the Court's reference to 'congressional approval of arbitration.' It is difficult to......
-
USM Corp. v. GKN Fasteners, Ltd., No. 77-1433
...interposition of an arbitration agreement has been construed an equitable defense at least since Shanferoke Corp. v. Westchester Corp., 293 U.S. 449, 452, 55 S.Ct. 313, 79 L.Ed. 583 7 See generally 2 Moore's Federal Practice P 2.05 at 331-354 (2d ed. 1977); 9 Id., P 110.20(3) at 240-246 (2d......
-
Olson v. Paine, Webber, Jackson & Curtis, Inc., No. 86-1334
...a stay as such--a stay that is not also an injunction--is not appealable. In Shanferoke Coal & Supply Corp. v. Westchester Service Corp., 293 U.S. 449, 452, 55 S.Ct. 313, 314, 79 L.Ed. 583 (1935), decided the same day, the Court held that under the rule just laid down in Enelow the stay of ......
-
Ex parte Alabama Oxygen Co., Inc., BORG-WARNER
...over litigation to ease the congestion of the courts. The citation to Shanferoke Coal & Supply Corp. v. Westchester Serv. Corp., 293 U.S. 449, 453 [55 S.Ct. 313, 315, 79 L.Ed. 583] (1935), was apparently to the Court's reference to 'congressional approval of arbitration.' It is difficult to......
-
USM Corp. v. GKN Fasteners, Ltd., No. 77-1433
...interposition of an arbitration agreement has been construed an equitable defense at least since Shanferoke Corp. v. Westchester Corp., 293 U.S. 449, 452, 55 S.Ct. 313, 79 L.Ed. 583 7 See generally 2 Moore's Federal Practice P 2.05 at 331-354 (2d ed. 1977); 9 Id., P 110.20(3) at 240-246 (2d......
-
Brandon v. Hines, No. 79-1174.
...Inc. v. Bodinger, 348 U.S. 176, 179, 75 S.Ct. 249, 251, 99 L.Ed. 233 (1955); Shanferoke Coal & Supply Corp. v. Westchester Service Corp., 293 U.S. 449, 451, 55 S.Ct. 313, 314, 79 L.Ed. 583 (1935).10 The Supreme Court, however, has held that such an order may be an appealable interlocutory o......
-
Gold Coast Mall, Inc. v. Larmar Corp., No. 119
...a claim to initiate arbitration. E.g., Shanferoke Coal & Supply Corp. v. Westchester Service Corp., 70 F.2d 297, 299 (2d Cir.), aff'd, 293 U.S. 449, 55 S.Ct. 313, 79 L.Ed. 583 (1935); In re Necchi Sewing Machine Sales Corp., 260 F.Supp. 665, 668 (S.D.N.Y.1966); Lane-Tahoe Inc. v. Kindred Co......
-
Arbitration Waiver and Prejudice.
...299 (2d Cir. 1934) (finding that a defendant was not "in default" under section 3 because the defendant was willing to arbitrate), aff'd 293 U.S. 449 (1935). But see Kulukundis Shipping Co., 126 F.2d at 989 n.39 (collecting early cases that allowed conduct-based waivers). (140.) Pre-Paid Le......