The Anaconda v. American Sugar Refining Co, No. 649
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | ROBERTS |
| Citation | 64 S.Ct. 863,322 U.S. 42,88 L.Ed. 1117 |
| Parties | THE ANACONDA et al. v. AMERICAN SUGAR REFINING CO |
| Docket Number | No. 649 |
| Decision Date | 24 April 1944 |
v.
AMERICAN SUGAR REFINING CO.
Mr. Cody Fowler, of Tampa, Fla., for petitioners.
Mr. Henry N. Longley, of New York City, for respondent.
Page 43
Mr. Justice ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari because this case poses an important question arising under the United States Arbitration Act.1 The question arises in these circumstances. The petitioner Smith-Rowland Company, Inc., as owner, chartered to the respondent, American Sugar Refining Company, the barge 'Anaconda' for a voyage from Havana, Cuba, to Port Everglades, Florida. After arrival at the latter port, the respondent filed in a federal district court a libel in personam against the petitioner with a prayer for process of foreign attachment, and in rem against the vessel, which was seized by the marshal.
Smith-Rowland Company, Inc., appearing specially, excepted to the jurisdiction of the court, relying on a provision of the charter party which was: 'Any and all differences and disputes of whatsoever nature arising out of this charter shall be put to arbitration at the final place of discharge * * * pursuant to the provisions of the United States Arbitration Act * * * except that the provisions of Section 8 thereof shall not apply to any arbitration hereunder.' (Italics supplied.)
Section 8 of the Act is: 'If the basis of jurisdiction be a cause of action otherwise justiciable in admiralty, then, notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, the party claiming to be aggrieved may begin his proceeding hereunder by libel and seizure of the vessel * * * according to the usual course of admiralty proceedings, and the court shall then have jurisdiction to direct the parties to proceed with the arbitration and shall retain jurisdiction to enter its decree upon the award.'
The court treated the petitioner's exception as a motion to dismiss, and ordered dismissal2 on the ground that it was competent to the parties, while availing themselves of the
Page 44
provisions of the Act rendering arbitration agreements enforcible in courts of admiralty, to preclude resort to the usual process of seizure as security for compliance with any arbitral award. The respondent appealed from the order, and the parties entered a stipulation for value pursuant to which the barge was released from the marshal's custody. The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the judgment.3 We hold its action was right.
Within the spheres of its operation,—maritime transactions and transactions in commerce, interstate and with foreign nations, the Arbitration Act rendered a written provision in a contract by the parties to such a transaction, to arbitrate controversies arising thereout, specifically...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
FREE ENT. FUND v. PUBLIC CO. ACCTG. OVERSIGHT BD., No. 08-861.
.... . . especially [if] . . . separation-of-powers concerns . . . would [thereby] arise"); The Anaconda v. American Sugar Refining Co., 322 U.S. 42, 46, 64 S.Ct. 863, 88 L.Ed. 1117 (1944) (describing parties' inability to "stipulate away" what "the legislation It is certai......
-
Westmoreland Capital Corp. v. Findlay, No. 973
...an agreement to arbitrate does not divest the court of jurisdiction." Id. at 963 (citing The Anaconda v. American Sugar Refining Co., 322 U.S. 42, 44-45, 64 S.Ct. 863, 864-65, 88 L.Ed. 1117 (1944) (suit in admiralty under FAA § 4)); see also, Doctor's Assoc., Inc. v. Distajo, 66 F.3d 4......
-
U.S. Express Lines Ltd. v. Higgins, No. 00-4205.
...is the right to attach that the parties cannot consent in advance to forego that remedy. In The Anaconda v. American Sugar Refining Co., 322 U.S. 42, 43, 64 S.Ct. 863, 88 L.Ed. 1117 (1944), the charter party provided for arbitration but specifically precluded application of section 8. Never......
-
United Nuclear Corp. v. General Atomic Co., No. 11775
...to exclude the court from jurisdiction over this issue. American Sugar Refining Co. v. The Anaconda, 138 F.2d 765 (5th Cir. 1943), Aff'd, 322 U.S. 42, 64 S.Ct. 863, 88 L.Ed. 1117 (1944); Ocean Science & Eng., Inc. v. International Geomarine Corp., 312 F.Supp. 825 4. Procedural Issues GA......
-
United Nuclear Corp. v. General Atomic Co., No. 11775
...to exclude the court from jurisdiction over this issue. American Sugar Refining Co. v. The Anaconda, 138 F.2d 765 (5th Cir. 1943), Aff'd, 322 U.S. 42, 64 S.Ct. 863, 88 L.Ed. 1117 (1944); Ocean Science & Eng., Inc. v. International Geomarine Corp., 312 F.Supp. 825 4. Procedural Issues GAC ar......
-
Giangrande v. Shearson Lehman/EF Hutton, Civ. A. No. 89-2858-T.
...relief under an agreement to arbitrate does not divest the court of jurisdiction. See The Anaconda v. American Sugar Refining Co., 322 U.S. 42, 44-45, 64 S.Ct. 863, 865, 88 L.Ed. 1117 (1944). The likely intended meaning of the "save for" clause is that the court which is otherwise vested of......
-
Klauder & Nunno Enterprises v. Hereford Associates, Civ. A. No. 89-5654
...by judicial constructions, makes clear that courts may not deny jurisdiction on that basis. The Anaconda v. American Sugar Refining Co., 322 U.S. 42, 44, 64 S.Ct. 863, 865, 88 L.Ed. 1117 (1944). Were that so, the courts would lose supervisory powers over arbitration, save by costly separate......
-
Drexel Burnham Lambert, Inc. v. Valenzuela Bock, No. 88 Civ. 2815(PNL).
...relief under an agreement to arbitrate does not divest the court of jurisdiction.5 See The Anaconda v. American Sugar Refining Co., 322 U.S. 42, 44-45, 64 S.Ct. 863, 864-65, 88 L.Ed. 1117 (1944). The likely intended 696 F. Supp. 963 meaning of the "save for" clause is that the court which i......