Matter of Cheney Bros. v. Joroco Dresses, Inc.

157 N.E. 272, 245 N.Y. 375, 1927 N.Y. LEXIS 636
New York Court of Appeals·Decided May 31, 1927·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

*376 Per Curiam.

The restrictions upon customers, forbidding their using the Cheney Brothers name in resales, promised to be imposed by the petitioner, according to the uncontradicted proof, had reference to 40-inch printed radium cloth and none other. In all contracts made by the petitioner for the sale of such fabrics the restrictions promised were invariably imposed. No restrictions, as to resales of 36-inch printed Bivulay or 40-inch printed satin crepe, were imposed in the contracts made for the sales thereof. It is undisputed, however, that 40-inch printed radium cloth is a wholly different fabric from 36-. inch printed Bivulay, or 40-inch printed satin crepe. Therefore, there is no proof that the petitioner made promises as to restrictions which it did not keep or intended from the outset not to keep. No fraud in procuring the contracts with respondent, therefore, was shown. It is undisputed that the contracts were made. Therefore, all disputes between the parties arise from valid contracts entered into by them. They are, therefore, arbitrable under the terms of the contracts. The question whether arbitration could be compelled to *377 determine an issue made as to the procurement of a contract by fraud is, therefore, not before us and will not now be determined.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and that of the Special Term affirmed, with costs in the Appellate Division and in this court.

Cardozo, Ch. J., Pound, Crane, Andrews, Lehman Kellogg and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

Ordered accordingly.

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

Matter of Cheney Bros. v. Joroco Dresses, Inc., 157 N.E. 272, 245 N.Y. 375, 1927 N.Y. LEXIS 636 (N.Y. 1927).

157 N.E. 272 (Matter of Cheney Bros. v. Joroco Dresses, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In Re the Arbitration Between Weinrott & Carp
298 N.E.2d 42 (New York Court of Appeals, 1973)
Trubowitch v. Riverbank Canning Co.
182 P.2d 182 (California Supreme Court, 1947)
In Re the Arbitration Between Behrens & Feuerring
71 N.E.2d 454 (New York Court of Appeals, 1947)
In re Gruen
173 Misc. 765 (New York Supreme Court, 1940)