PROCEDURE - SERVICE OF PROCESS - JURISDICTION CONFERRED BY CONSENT

Authors

Abstract

Plaintiff, a resident of England, and defendant, a resident of New York, entered into a contract for the sale and delivery of zinc. By a clause in the contract the parties agreed that all differences arising thereunder should be arbitrated at London pursuant to the arbitration law of Great Britain. Differences arose, and the plaintiff requested the defendant in New York to concur in the selection of an arbitrator, serving notice that, in the event of failure so to do, application would be made for appointment of one as provided by statute. This notice was ignored, and a form of process was issued by the English court and served on the defendant in New York. It was ignored, and thereupon an arbitrator was appointed who issued notice to the defendant to appear in England and produce all papers relevant to the controversy. This being ignored, the arbitrator proceeded to render an award in favor of the plaintiff, upon which this action is based. The action was dismissed on a motion for judgment on the pleadings in the lower court, and, on appeal, it was held that the plaintiff had stated a good cause of action, for, if the contract be proved as alleged, it was sufficient to act as a consent to process being served outside the jurisdiction in the manner provided for in the arbitration laws. Gilbert v. Burnstine, 255 N. Y. 348, 174 N.E. 706 (1931).

Recommended Citation

PROCEDURE - SERVICE OF PROCESS - JURISDICTION CONFERRED BY CONSENT, 30 Mich. L. Rev. 159 (1931).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol30/iss1/27