Larkin v. Robbins

2 Wend. 505
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedMay 15, 1829
StatusPublished
Cited by32 cases

This text of 2 Wend. 505 (Larkin v. Robbins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Larkin v. Robbins, 2 Wend. 505 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1829).

Opinion

By the Court, Marcy, J.

The point presented for the opinion of this court is, whether the mere submission of a cause to arbitration, the arbitrators never taking or consenting to take upon themselves the burden of the submission, operates as a discontinuance of a suit pending in court. The distinction that the plaintiff in error makes between a submission never acted on by the arbitrators, and one which has been followed up by an award or hearing by the arbitrators, does not appear to have been recognized by the courts, nor do I see any good reason for making such distinction. The general position is, that a submission of a cause pending in court is a discontinuance of the suit. (18 Johns. R. 22. 6 Cowen, 399. 1 Wendell, 314. 17 Mass. R. 591.) The reason that the submission operates as a discontinuance, is not because the subject of the suit is otherwise disposed of than by the decision of the court in which it was prosecuted ; but because the parties have selected another tribunal for the trial of it. The court will not look to the proceedings of that tribunal to determine whether the suit is gone beyond its jurisdiction. It is sufficient that the parties have selected their arbitrators, and concluded their agreement to submit to them. It is this agreement which withdraws the cause from the court, and effects the discontinuance of the suit.

Judgment for the defendant in error.

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

Related

Mitsui & Co. v. El Dorado Oil Works
38 F. Supp. 752 (N.D. California, 1941)
Campbell v. Campbell
44 App. D.C. 142 (D.C. Circuit, 1915)
Radway v. Duffy
79 A.D. 116 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1903)
Goodwin v. Merchants' & Bankers' Mutual Insurance
92 N.W. 894 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1902)
Lewis v. Yagel
28 N.Y.S. 833 (New York Supreme Court, 1894)
Callanan v. Port Huron & Northwestern Railway Co.
27 N.W. 718 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1886)
McNulty v. . Solley
95 N.Y. 242 (New York Court of Appeals, 1884)
McNulty v. Solley
66 How. Pr. 147 (New York Supreme Court, 1883)
Keep v. Keep
24 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 152 (New York Supreme Court, 1879)
Claflin v. . Meyer
75 N.Y. 260 (New York Court of Appeals, 1878)
Baldwin v. Barrett
6 Thomp. & Cook 362 (New York Supreme Court, 1875)
Jacoby v. Johnston
3 Thomp. & Cook 747 (New York Supreme Court, 1874)
Susong v. Jack
48 Tenn. 415 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1870)
Cunningham v. Craig
53 Ill. 252 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1870)
Norwood v. Stephens
47 Tenn. 1 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1869)
Bowen v. Lazalere
44 Mo. 383 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1869)
Lary v. Goodnow
48 N.H. 170 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1868)
Crooker v. Buck
41 Me. 355 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1856)
Reeve v. Mitchell
15 Ill. 297 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1853)
Vanderhoof v. Dean
1 Mich. 463 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1850)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2 Wend. 505, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/larkin-v-robbins-nysupct-1829.