In re the Arbitration between Frankle & Petzold
New York Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtSchmuck, J.
Three contracts were entered into by the principal* herein and each had the identical arbitration clause. Disputes having arisen, petitioner invokes the benefit of the clause adverted to and demands a direction that respondent proceed to arbitrate the controversy. Respondent resists the application on various grounds as to each of the contracts, particularly asserting that as regards the contracts of October 21 and 26, 1942, no arbitration can be had because no contracts exist between the parties by reason of impossibility of performance occasioned by a regulation promulgated by the Office of…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- United States v. American Trucking AssociationsSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
- Matter of Lipman (Haeuser Shellac Co.)New York Court of Appeals · 1942
- Matter of Kramer Uchitelle, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1942
- Matter of Kahn (National City Bank)New York Court of Appeals · 1940
- S. A. Wenger & Co. v. Propper Silk Hosiery Mills, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1924
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Two Sisters, Inc. v. Gosch & Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1976
- Neuberg v. Avery F. Payne Co.New York Supreme Court · 1944