Petroleum Separating Company v. Interamerican Refining Corporation

Second Circuit

Petroleum Separating Company v. Interamerican Refining Corporation

296 F.2d 124

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedNovember 20, 1961

Docket27034_1

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 296 F.2d 124 (Petroleum Separating Company v. Interamerican Refining Corporation) 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

Petroleum Separating Company v. Interamerican Refining Corporation, 296 F.2d 124 (2d Cir. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Interamerican Refining Corporation, respondent-appellant, here seeks to upset an arbitration award, made pursuant to an agreement for arbitration by arbitrators duly appointed by the American Arbitration Association, on the ground that the decision was the result of “misconduct” and “evident partiality” for lack of reasonable evidence to support the award. The dispute arose as to respondent’s obligation to make payment of a minimum daily charge for the storage and processing of crude oil by petitioner for respondent, and the award made against respondent was in the amount of $319,-635.70 and interest. The arbitration was conducted in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association, as agreed, and we can perceive no misconduct; the arbitrators appear to have accepted hearsay evidence from both parties, as they were entitled to do. If parties wish to rely on such technical objections they should not include arbitration clauses in their contracts. The appeal is quite insubstantial.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Interamerican Refining Corporation, respondent-appellant, here seeks to upset an arbitration award, made pursuant to an agreement for arbitration by arbitrators duly appointed by the American Arbitration Association, on the ground that the decision was the result of “misconduct” and “evident partiality” for lack of reasonable evidence to support the award. The dispute arose as to respondent’s obligation to make payment of a minimum daily charge for the storage and processing of crude oil by petitioner for respondent, and the award made against respondent was in the amount of $319,-635.70 and interest. The arbitration was conducted in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association, as agreed, and we can perceive no misconduct; the arbitrators appear to have accepted hearsay evidence from both parties, as they were entitled to do. If parties wish to rely on such technical objections they should not include arbitration clauses in their contracts. The appeal is quite insubstantial.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

296 F.2d 124, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/petroleum-separating-company-v-interamerican-refining-corporation-ca2-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack