The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1869-12-15
THE slpIEnBaa GOLD nUDDL g.
Important Opinion in the Gold Exchange
Cause.-The Powers OF the Arbitration Cons
n,iitec-fnjnncison Denied md Temporary
Injunction Dissolved.

Cause.-The Powers OF the Arbitration COni-
n,iitec-fnjnnciion Denied md Temporary
Injunction Dissolved.
The case OF William Heath aud others AGAINST John
+. undernll, President OF the New York Gold Ex-
change, and others. arising out Of the September
gold panic, was before Judge Loew, OF the Court of
Common Pleas short time sinee motion to
continue the Injunction originally granted. and yes
terday Judge Loew rendered tue following impor-
portant opinion on the motIon:-
AS the injunction when was issued In this action
has been modified WIN the consent OF the plaintiffs,
80 tIat inc 0iiiceIS and members OF The God
Exchange and the Arbitration ConmilLee thereof
are now only enjOned and restrained from hold ng
Livermoie Il Co. against the PLAINTIFFS, snail only
consider that point. by arllcle OF the New YORK
cold Excilange--of wnicn plaintiffs are. or were,
menbers-it IS provided as foiiOws-fne Arb traiion
Committee snail CONSIST OF chairman, TO he elected
annually by ballot and 10 serve Tor year. and Two
members, TO be appointed by tue president ON The
lst OF every month W serve Tor ono month. IL shall
be tue duty Of said committee to take cognzance II
aud exercise jurisdiction al and matters
OF difference between the ncmDerS OF the Boaru.
aud theif decision Saail be- Anal. 6s5
The precise eject OF arDi rat on clause like this
III tie CONSTITUTION OF mn Incorporated association
Ike the COO Exchange upon persons who vuiun-
tarly become members thereof, and agree TO sub
mt TO and abide ny the constitution and bylaws or
the same, GAS, believe never been Judclaiy deter
mined. Before the constitution and laws or sucn al
association can have any binding force Whatever
upon member thereof which VIII recognized
aud enforced by the courts II must appear thai sucn
lAustn Soaring. Fourteenth new York PAGE H.,
Assuming that the piantis IN this action assented
TO the constitution Of the Cold tXcnange
IN sucn manner 10 establish u
valid contract between them and the other
members OF the association The question arises what
Dnding iurce or effect mas TINS seventh article upon
themf In my opinion tue most That can possibly be
Claimed Tor IL Is that It should nave the same force
and effect as agreement In writing made by per-
SONS 10 submit 10 the DECISION Of one or more
arpitrat0rs any controversy existing between teLn
II | am correct In this conclusion 1t will become
an Ordinary agreement 10 suOnit matter IN differ
ence to arDitra0n For the reason tnas tue enforce
meat OF such agreement IS oeemed against pup 40
policy and. as courts OF Justice are presumed 10 DC
better capable OF administering and enforcing tue
arDitrators. SUCH agreements are not enforced
eUher by court OF Jaw or court OF equity. q
Jurisp., c. 8o7; XIII VS.. Iolister, l wilson La;
street Va. Rugby, Vesey. AS Agar vs. Macklaw,
Thompson vs. CharnocK. Term. i3S; Haggert VS..
Morgan, N. T., 422.) But after an award has been
made IL Is conclusive on the parties and may ne en-.
story's Equity Jursp.. c. l,4os.) BY the Revised
Statutes party IS permitted 10 revoke the powers
OF the arbitrators any before the cause Ii
finally submitted for their decision. & hev. stat,
OLA c. 20; GURUS vs. Barnes 20 aro 20; Alien VS..
watson, 10 JOHNS, 25) Tnls secson or Inc Revised
Statutes IL seems, applles to ali OF submission
10 arbitration. tBioonier w. Sh rman, LdW., 452,
and see same case on appeal, iaiae, 5loJ Ana
the Court OF Appeals III ths case OF ausln vs.. Scar
lux supra. speaking o. such voluntary associa-
lions Ike the God exchange, sass:--"iO create q
power aud, although parties MAJ always maze
such tribunals for themselves IN any speciuc case,
10y u SUBMISSION 10 arpiirlLon, YET the power Is
guarded by the most cautious rules. contract
that the parties VIII submit coners no power on the
ARBITRATOR, ana, even wnen there Is an &C
tual SUBMISSION H. may be revoked at any
time" In my opinion, therefore, the PLAIN.
tins had perfect right revoke and
annu-as they aliege IN their com taint they did
any power 10 albltrate they may Ia, 9 previously
conferred upon either The Gold Exchange The ar
bitration committee thereof. / do not understand
that these views any wise CONFLICT yah the case Of
White VS.. browneii, aeciiel py tnls Court. e. ADD
II. N. s., 5IS ABB. X. NJ D.. 1871 IL was Llere de-
cded that the open Board OF Brokers n,La tue rgnt
TO suspend or expel member np0n Dfcach OF tso
bylaws by him Ill respect ~ The fuiInieut Vi con
tract. And although the question VI the enecL oil
the arbitration III that ca Was the subject Oh DIS
cUsSOn, yet the Court, at Special ana General Terms,
refused 10 pass that question. Now, whether the
plaintiffs be regarded a5 nemoerS OF the de-
1cndanis' oiganlZaion-as they claim they are IN
ceased 10 be such MEMOIRS. as tney aicQe ia Their
supplemental cOlnplaint tney having revoked aud
annulled any contract Of suomssl. II to arDiration
they may nave maze, any actlJn winch the Gold EX-
change or the arbItIatDn cDLnnl.ttce LneIeot may
take IN the premises wii amount 10 nOtAilg. Inc
DEFENDANTS cannoI enforce any award or Juugmene
that they may make Or renuer, ANA Lapprenend THAT
the plaintiffs could not oe a1eced or injured " IL IL
any way. Having come TO tlls CONCLUSION, II would
seem that the y aintn5 are not entitled TO TEN.
porary Injunction. curt OF equity should 10
extremely cautious In the exercise o Tie power 10
issue an Injunction, and should award " ou.y lii
very clear cases. Woodward vs. Harris, barb.
43y.) IL sIould not DC granted IN every case IN
which party brings himself within the letter OF
2i9 oil the Cvae; but tne nature ana extent
0i the INJURY which the plaintl1 would suer Ii the
Injunction were wtnneidksii0uid he taken INTO
slderatIon. (Bruce Vs. Delaware and Hudson Canal
Company, 10 Barb, al; Gdilatin Vs. oriental BANK
16 How. X, 253 McCaferty vs.. Glazer, ~ ID, 475)
the motion to Continue the injunction Should be
denied, ami the Temporary injunction dissolved.