Case ID: pa_460/html/0588-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. ROBERTS, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

334 A.2d 247
    W. V. PANGBORNE & CO., INC. v. WARK & COMPANY and Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland. Appeal of WARK & COMPANY.
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    Argued April 29, 1974.
    Decided March 18, 1975.
    Arthur R. Littleton, Thomas C. Sadler, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, G. M. Harvey, Philadelphia, for appellant.
    Murray S. Levin, Philadelphia, Bruce L. Phillips, Robert F. Cushman, Philadelphia, for appellee, W. V. Pang-borne & Co., Inc.
    Before JONES, C. J., and EAGEN, O’BRIEN, ROBERTS, POMEROY, NIX and MANDERINO, JJ.
   Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

Having examined the record, we are of opinion that the parties to this appeal agreed to arbitrate disputes arising under the contract between them and that the claims which the appellee seeks to arbitrate are not excluded from the arbitration agreement by any provision of the Subcontract, including Article IX. See generally Flightways Corp. v. Keystone Helicopter Corp., 460 Pa. 660, 331 A.2d 184 [filed January 27, 1975]; Borough of Ambridge Water Authority v. Columbia, Pa., 328 A.2d 498 (1974).

Decree affirmed. Costs on appellant.

ROBERTS, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

DISSENTING OPINION

ROBERTS, J.

I dissent because the record does not establish that W. V. Pangborne & Co. and Wark & Co. agreed to arbitrate disputes arising under their subcontract. Therefore, the court of common pleas improperly ordered Wark to submit the dispute to arbitration.