Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1915

Sutro v. H. W. Balk, Inc.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided February 16, 1915 · Guy

151 N.Y.S. 764 (New York Supplement)

Counsel

Chadbourne, Hunt & Jaeckel (Albert F. Jaeckel and Minturn De S. Verdi, both of New York City, of counsel), for appellant., Caldwell & Banister, of New York City (Charles Caldwell, of New York City, of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion of the Court

GUY, J.

The action was brought to recover for goods sold and delivered. The answer, among other things, set up a counterclaim based upon the contract sued upon, which contained the following clause:

“Any differences arising under this contract do not invalidate the same, and are to be adjusted by arbitration unless otherwise settled.”

The reply admitted the contract. The court dismissed the complaint, on the ground that the action was barred by the arbitration clause of the contract.

An arbitration clause in a contract, withdrawing all possible differences arising or to arise thereunder from the courts and agreeing to submit them to arbitration, is invalid. National Contracting Co. v. H. R. W. P. Co., 192 N. Y. 211, 219-221, 84 N. E. 965; Meacham v. Jamestown, 211 N. Y. 346, 350-352, 105 N. E. 653; Seward v. City of *765Rochester, 109 N. Y. 164, 168, 169, 16 N. E. 348; President D. & H. Canal Co. v. Pa. Coal Co., 50 N. Y. 250, 258.

Judgment reversed, and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.