TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

In re the Arbitration between Hauck & Rochester Taxicab Co.

In the Matter of the Arbitration between Peter G. Hauck and Rochester Taxicab Company and Fred J. Zorn, Pursuant to Provisions of Contract

In re the Arbitration between Hauck & Rochester Taxicab Co., 127 Misc. 759 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1926)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
New York Supreme Court · State Trial Courts
Decided
June 15, 1926
Judges
Rodenbeck
Citations
127 Misc. 759217 N.Y.S. 21926 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1052

Opinion of the Court — Rodenbeck

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Rodenbeck, J.

This is a proceeding to confirm the report of arbitrators appointed January 15, 1925, under a contract dated October 16, 1922, for the erection of a garage and office building. Two of the arbitrators reported an award in favor of the plaintiff November 28, 1925. The arbitrator nominated by the Rochester Taxicab Company and Fred J. Zorn did not join in the report. It is claimed by the latter that the third arbitrator selected by those *760 nominated by each side resigned orally and thereafter hearings were had between him and the arbitrator nominated by Hauck, of which the arbitrator nominated by the Rochester Taxicab Company and Zorn had no notice, and in which he did not participate. There is enough in the record to satisfy the court that the arbitrators imperfectly executed the arbitration and that a mutual, final and definite award as required by law was not made. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1457.) The award, therefore, should be vacated. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1457.) The court may in its discretion direct a rehearing by the arbitrators if the time within which the submission requiring the award to be made has not expired. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1457.) The award was required to be made before the expiration of the year 1925 and the alleged report was so made but the matter cannot be resubmitted within the time specified in the submission and, therefore, a rehearing by the same arbitrators cannot be had. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1457.)

The award is set aside and the matter remitted for submission to new arbitrators under the contract. So ordered.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1957: 11964: 21965: 219572026peak 1964 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Ench Equipment Corp. v. Enkay Foods, Inc.129 A.2d 313 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1957)
  2. State v. Koonce214 A.2d 428 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1965)
  3. Reardon v. Allen213 A.2d 26 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1965)
  4. Johnson v. Christ Hospital202 A.2d 874 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1964)
  5. Gilbert v. Unsatisfied Claim, Etc., Bd.204 A.2d 204 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1964)

Most recent

  1. State v. Koonce214 A.2d 428 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1965)
  2. Reardon v. Allen213 A.2d 26 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1965)
  3. Gilbert v. Unsatisfied Claim, Etc., Bd.204 A.2d 204 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1964)
  4. Johnson v. Christ Hospital202 A.2d 874 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1964)
  5. Ench Equipment Corp. v. Enkay Foods, Inc.129 A.2d 313 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1957)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list