Legal Opinion
Matter of Haupt v. Rose
New York Court of Appeals
Decided July 3, 1934PublishedCited by 37 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtCrouch, J.
As part of the contract between Haupt & Co., stockbrokers, and Rose, a customer, there was a provision that any controversy between them should be determined by arbitration. On June 29, 1933, Haupt & Co. demanded that a controversy which had arisen should be submitted to arbitration. Upon failure of Rose to proceed in accordance with the demand, a motion was made for an order directing arbitration and staying the trial of an action theretofore commenced by Rose against Haupt & Co. The motion was denied at Special Term and the order was affirmed by the Appellate Division. The ground for denial…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Matter of Zimmerman v. . CohenNew York Court of Appeals · 1923
- Matter of Hosiery Mfrs. Corp. v. . GoldstonNew York Court of Appeals · 1924
- Nagy v. Arcas Brass & Iron Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1926
3Cited by37 opinions
- De Sapio v. KohlmeyerNew York Court of Appeals · 1974
- Applicolor, Inc. v. Surface Combustion Corp.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1966
- Singer v. Jefferies & Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1991
- Weight Watchers of Quebec Ltd. v. Weight Watchers International, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 1975
- ALLIED BLDG. INSPECTORS INT'L UNION OF OPERATING ENG'RS, LOCAL UNION NO. 211, AFL-CIO v. Office of Labor Relations of the City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1978
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.