In re the Arbitration between Murray Oil Products Co. & Eagle Paint & Varnish Works, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Arbitration between Murray Oil Products Co. & Eagle Paint & Varnish Works, Inc.

243 A.D. 548

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 15, 1934

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 243 A.D. 548 (In re the Arbitration between Murray Oil Products Co. & Eagle Paint & Varnish Works, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re the Arbitration between Murray Oil Products Co. & Eagle Paint & Varnish Works, Inc., 243 A.D. 548 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Order denying motion to confirm the award of arbitrators and granting motion to vacate and set aside the award modified by striking therefrom the provision directing the same arbitrators to proceed de novo in accordance with the terms of the agreement and to hear and determine the controversies. As so modified the order is affirmed, in so far as appealed from, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to appellant. The grounds for vacatur of the award were of such a character as to make improvident the resubmission of the controversies to the same arbitrators, the propriety of which resubmission rests in sound discretion. (Civ. Prae. Act, § 1457.) The court seems to be without power to name a neutral arbitrator in place of Schwalb, under the circumstances existing herein. Appeal from order dated October 5, 1934, denying resettlement, dismissed. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Hagarty, Carswell and Tompkins, JJ., concur.

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

Order denying motion to confirm the award of arbitrators and granting motion to vacate and set aside the award modified by striking therefrom the provision directing the same arbitrators to proceed de novo in accordance with the terms of the agreement and to hear and determine the controversies. As so modified the order is affirmed, in so far as appealed from, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to appellant. The grounds for vacatur of the award were of such a character as to make improvident the resubmission of the controversies to the same arbitrators, the propriety of which resubmission rests in sound discretion. (Civ. Prae. Act, § 1457.) The court seems to be without power to name a neutral arbitrator in place of Schwalb, under the circumstances existing herein. Appeal from order dated October 5, 1934, denying resettlement, dismissed. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Hagarty, Carswell and Tompkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 A.D. 548, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-murray-oil-products-co-eagle-paint-nyappdiv-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack