Document: 374 U.S. 167 83 S.Ct. 1815 10 L.Ed.2d 818 H. W. MOSELEY, doing business as Moseley Plumbing and Heating Company, Petitioner,v.ELECTRONIC & MISSILE FACILITIES, INC., et al. No. 401. Argued April 16 17, 1963. Decided June George C. Grant, Macon, Ga., for petitioner. Newell Edenfield, Atlanta, respondents. Mr. Justice CLARK delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The primary issue in this case is whether a claim under Miller Act, 40 U.S.C. §§ 270a—270d, amended, based upon arbitration clauses two subcontracts providing any dispute arising thereunder, enforceable provisions United States Arbitration Act. 9 1, 2 3. institution suit was directed toward recovery compensation alleged to be due between petitioner, plumbing heating contractor, respondent Electronic Missile Facilities, Inc., who prime contractor contract with Corps Engineers, Savannah District, covering certain Nike Hercules missile installations at Robins Air Force Base Defense Area Turner Area, both which are located State Georgia. provided New York, and, disputes having arisen filed Supreme Court York seeking an order directing accordance provisions. Petitioner then Middle District Georgia, where work performed, (1) amounts subcontracts; (2) rescission subcontracts—on grounds fraud—and on quantum meruit basis; (3) alternative, failing these claims, reasonable value labor materials furnished; (4) injunction enjoining from proceeding its efforts York. Neither party sought compel specific performance agreement. Court, holding that Act gave petitioner right sue were performed clause, if induced by fraud part respondent, would vitiated, made permanent prior restraining proceedings Appeals reversed, must arbitrate law. 306 F.2d 554. We granted certiorari. 371 919, 287, 228. attacks subcontracts, well agreement, being fraudulent, issue, we conclude, first determined therefore reverse judgment remand directions further not inconsistent opinion. I. need elaborate length involved factual situation since it detailed opinions As have said, district alleging breach refusal pay had been alternatively, fraud. brought provides pertinent part: 3 'Every instituted section shall name use person suing, executed elsewhere, irrespective amount controversy * *.' § 270b(b). 4 It parties included within 'shall prosecute said action final execution Id., 270b(a). Respondent moved dismiss or stay same so might proceed terms each '(a)ny out relating to' their submitted City In denying motions held did apply here other nullify also concluded allegations fraud, sustained, would, Georgia law, rescind including agreement arbitration. 5 Appeals, one judge dissenting, reversed theory enacted benefit plaintiffs selection forum, but rather convenience defendant, type should subject federal law controls determining allegation precludes that, bar specifically clause than entire contract. Thus, points. II. 6 At outset note, indicated, no request has enforcement subcontracts. Indeed, attacked only contained therein, procured through With pleadings posture, obliged pass priority determination trial case. essence, alleges him, subcontractors, fraudulent scheme obtain great material subcontractors without making payment therefor 'browbeat' his fellow into accepting much less claims. One means used effect such insertion requiring Under either seems clear adjudicated before rights can determined. appears necessary, therefore, issue. considering question sufficiency reference believe here, goes itself, contended scheme. If favorably there 7 view our necessary reach issues arbitrability fact, disposition may dispose suit. event decided called decide related problems cases, decision point then, course, review. 8 instructions ordered. Judgment remanded instructions. 11 STEWART affirm substantially reasons stated Chief Judge Tuttle's Appeals. 12 THE CHIEF JUSTICE BLACK, concurring. 13 agree procurement contract, like makes void unenforceable judicial one, court. To allow arbitrators extent enforce even though steeped grossest kind Compare Robert Lawrence Co. v. Devonshire Fabrics, 271 402 (C.A.2d Cir. 1959). For reason acquiesce Court's present single But leaves open questions importance laborers materialmen entitled controversies settled independent courts law: 14 Can member special class Congress, public interest, protected fixing venue claims particular court deprive himself remedy condition obtaining employment purchase materials? 15 person, arisen, all future he thereby lose go try according process law? light language legislative history, applied construction projects Act? 17 Is project, case, 'involving commerce' come restricted scope

Category: 7