Park Construction Co. v. Independent School District No. 32
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Dissent
Defendant contended that the contract stipulated for a statutory arbitration under 2 Mason Minn. St. 1927, § 9514, which would have brought the arbitration under the supervision of the court as we held in Holdridge v. Stowell, 39 Minn. 360,40 N.W. 259. Although it admitted that the contract called for a statutory arbitration, plaintiff claimed that it was entitled to proceed as at common law because of the failure of the parties to execute a submission under § 9514. Defendant refused to arbitrate altogether except under the statute. It refused to arbitrate at common law. That was an effective…
2Cases cited44 opinions
- Home Building & Loan Assn. v. BlaisdellSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
- Chas. Wolff Packing Co. v. Court of Industrial RelationsSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Red Cross Line v. Atlantic Fruit Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1924
- Brinkerhoff-Faris Trust & Savings Co. v. HillSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
- Matter of Berkovitz v. . Arbib HoulbergNew York Court of Appeals · 1921
39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Park Construction Co. v. Independent School District No. 32Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1941