Case Title: Camaro Trading v. Nissei Sangyo America

Citation: 577 So. 2d 1274

Docket Number: 1900124, 1900254

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 1991-03-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
577 So. 2d 1274 (1991)
CAMARO TRADING COMPANY, LTD.
v.
NISSEI SANGYO AMERICA, LTD.
NISSEI SANGYO AMERICA, LTD.
v.
CAMARO TRADING COMPANY, LTD.
1900124, 1900254.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
March 22, 1991.
William W. Anderson, Jr. and Lewis E. Bell of Lanier, Ford, Shaver & Payne, Huntsville, for appellant/cross-appellee.
Gary C. Huckaby and Stuart M. Maples of Bradley, Arant, Rose & White, Huntsville, and Stephen A. Gorman of Foran, Wiss & Schultz, Chicago, Ill., for appellee/cross-appellant.
HOUSTON, Justice.
Nissei Sangyo America, Ltd. ("Nissei"), filed this declaratory judgment action in the Circuit Court of Madison County against Camaro Trading Company, Ltd. ("Camaro"), seeking a declaration that a contract entered into by Nissei and Camaro was void. In its complaint, Nissei alleged that the contract was executed in Alabama and was to be performed in Alabama and that Camaro was a foreign corporation that had not qualified to do business in Alabama. Camaro filed a motion to compel arbitration pursuant to an arbitration clause in the contract that is the subject of the declaratory action. The trial court denied this motion. Camaro appeals as a matter of right from the denial of that motion. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc. v. Clark, 558 So. 2d 358, 360 (Ala.1990). We affirm.
No Alabama case has been cited in the briefs, and our independent research has not revealed any Alabama case addressing the issue of whether the court or the arbitrator determines the validity of a contract that contains a provision requiring that "[a]ny controversy or claim arising out of or relating to [the agreement], the breach thereof or the applicability of [the] arbitration provision" be submitted to arbitration.
The issue presented to us is substantially identical to the issue presented to Judge Marvin H. Shoob, United States District Court, Northern District of Georgia, in A.J. *1275 Taft Coal Co. v. S & H Contractors, Inc., [Ms. 1-88-CV-436-MHS, October 5, 1988] ___ F.Supp. ___ (N.D.Ga.1988), aff'd on other grounds, 906 F.2d 1507 (11th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 111 S. Ct. 677, 112 L. Ed. 2d 669 (1991), where the coal company sought to void an Alabama contract that contained an arbitration clause on the same ground that Nissei seeks to void the contract at issue here. Judge Shoob, in his well-reasoned opinion, wrote:
We agree with Judge Shoob.
6 C.J.S. 184 Arbitration § 14 (1975). (Emphasis added.)
5 Am.Jur.2d 531 Arbitration and Award § 15 (1962). We agree with these legal encyclopedias.
In Finsilver, Still & Moss v. Goldberg, Maas & Co., 253 N.Y. 382, 171 N.E. 579, 581, 69 A.L.R. 809, 813 (1930), Chief Judge Cardozo wrote:
We agree with Chief Judge Cardozo. If in truth there is no contract at all (the absence of a valid contract that provides for arbitration), it would be a violation of Alabama Constitution 1901, Article I, § 13, to deny Nissei access to the courts of Alabama:
The trial court did not err in denying Camaro's motion to compel arbitration. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Nissei cross-appealed the trial court's denial of its motion for summary judgment. This is an interlocutory order and there was no statement of the trial judge pursuant to Rule 5(a), A.R.App.P., which is essential for us to grant permission to appeal an interlocutory order. The cross-appeal is dismissed.
1900124, AFFIRMED.
1900254, CROSS-APPEAL DISMISSED.
HORNSBY, C.J., and MADDOX, SHORES and KENNEDY, JJ., concur.