Hyperlawhypertext legal database Electric Steel Elevator Co. v. John Kam Malting Co. 112 A.D. 686

← Cases

Electric Steel Elevator Co. v. John Kam Malting Co.

112 A.D. 686 Court Fourth Department, Decision date 1906-05-02 English

Delivered by Nash, J.:

Contents

Majority

p. 686
Electric Steel Elevator Company, Respondent, v. John Kam Malting Company, Appellant.
Fourth Department,
May 2, 1906.

Headnote

Arbitration—court can confirm., or vacate award, only in statutory arbitrations.
When an agreement to arbitrate is not acknowledged, proved or certified as required by section 2366 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court has neither power to. order a judgmenton an award made therein nor to vacate such-award. The court can take -no action upon an arbitration which is not a statutory arbitration.
.Appeal by the defendant, the John .Kam Malting Company, from so much of an order óf the Supreme Court, made at the Erie Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the" county of Erie on the 1st day of December, 1905, as denies the request of the defendant to vacate and' set aside an áward made by arbitrators.
TP". O. Carroll, for the-appellant.
Chct/rtes JB. Wheeler, for the respondent.

This is an appeal by the -defendant from an ■ order of the Erie Special' Term denying defendant’s application to .vacate an award made by arbitrators in favor of thé plaintiff.

p. 687
The plaintiff moved for an order confirming the award and for judgment thereon, pursuant to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, and upon the argument of the motion the defendant requested the court to vacate the award.

The motion to confirm was denied, as was also the application to vacate the award. It was further ordered that the motion to confirm be denied without prejudice of any rights the plaintiff might have to maintain an action at law or such other proceeding or remedy, on the award, as the plaintiff might be advised.

The defendant opposed the confirmation of the award upon the ground, among others, that the stipulation of the parties to the submission was not acknowledged, or proved and certified as required by section 2366 of the Code, and hence the court had no jurisdiction to order judgment upon the award. It was so held.

The defendant’s contention is the same now, and also, further, that the controversy was attempted to be submitted to the arbitration committee of the Chamber of Commerce of the city of Buffalo; that under the arbitration laws of the Chamber of Commerce the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable, and upon sufficient ground shown on application of either party to the submission, the court must make an order vacating the award. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2374.)

The contention of the plaintiff is that if the submission agreement was so defective that the' court had" no power to order judgment on the award," it had no power to vacate the award. This contention is correct. If it was not a statutory arbitration, the court was without jurisdiction to confirm or vacate the award, or take any action upon it.

All concurred; Keuse, J., not sitting.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.