Edward Goldstein v. Max Doft

Second Circuit

Edward Goldstein v. Max Doft

353 F.2d 484

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedNovember 22, 1965

Docket29552_1

StatusPublished

Cited by45 cases

This text of 353 F.2d 484 (Edward Goldstein v. Max Doft) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Edward Goldstein v. Max Doft, 353 F.2d 484 (2d Cir. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm on Judge Weinfeld’s opinion below, reported at 236 F.Supp. 730. While Judge Weinfeld’s opinion makes no specific reference to the allegations that appellant was deprived “of the fruits of his labors in introducing a new line to the shoe trade,” it is clear from the context that this item was not overlooked. As with appellant’s other claims on the merits, the difference between the issues litigated before the arbitrators and those attempted to be presented in this subsequent litigation is one of semantics only. The introduction of “a new line to the shoe trade” turns out to refer not to shoes but to “fabrics for the shoe trade” and thus is in the category of the goods appellant was to sell under his contract of February 26, 1948. Appellant was afforded the fullest opportunity to present his proofs to the arbitrators and he did so. Arbitration would be of little value if the entire controversy or any part thereof could be reopened later by a mere change in the words or phrases used to characterize the matters included in the claim the arbitrators had rejected.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We affirm on Judge Weinfeld’s opinion below, reported at 236 F.Supp. 730. While Judge Weinfeld’s opinion makes no specific reference to the allegations that appellant was deprived “of the fruits of his labors in introducing a new line to the shoe trade,” it is clear from the context that this item was not overlooked. As with appellant’s other claims on the merits, the difference between the issues litigated before the arbitrators and those attempted to be presented in this subsequent litigation is one of semantics only. The introduction of “a new line to the shoe trade” turns out to refer not to shoes but to “fabrics for the shoe trade” and thus is in the category of the goods appellant was to sell under his contract of February 26, 1948. Appellant was afforded the fullest opportunity to present his proofs to the arbitrators and he did so. Arbitration would be of little value if the entire controversy or any part thereof could be reopened later by a mere change in the words or phrases used to characterize the matters included in the claim the arbitrators had rejected.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

353 F.2d 484, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edward-goldstein-v-max-doft-ca2-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack