Court Opinion

ID: 9695771
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:29:00.932655+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:16.271392
License: Public Domain

SPAETH, Judge,
concurring:
The majority concludes that when an application for appointment of arbitrators has been made under § 4 of the Pennsylvania Arbitration Act of 1927, April 25, P.L. 381, No. 248, 5 P.S. § 164,1 there must be service in ac*543cordance with the Rules of Civil Procedure. However, the majority does not state which rule should apply. As I understand the majority opinion, the implication is that the same rule applies as when a petition is filed under § 3 of the Act, supra, 5 P.S. § 163, for an order to show cause why arbitration should not proceed in the manner provided for in the arbitration agreement;2 in other words, that notice of a petition under § 3 and an application under § 4 must both be served in conformity with the Rules of Civil Procedure for the service of a summons. I disagree. I nevertheless conclude, for other reasons, that appellee’s procedure was defective, and I therefore concur in the order reversing the order of the lower court and dismissing the application for appointment of arbitrators.
I
In order to answer the question of which rule should apply where an application for appointment of arbitrators has been made under § 4 of the Act,3 it is necessary to consider, step by step, the procedure required when one party alleges that the other has failed to “perform under a written agreement for arbitration.”
*544A
Under § 3 of the Act the party aggrieved should petition the court for “an order to show cause why such arbitration should not proceed in the manner provided.” The petition should aver that an agreement to arbitrate exists, and that the respondent has failed to comply with it. Notice of the petition must then be served upon the respondent “in the manner provided by law for the service of a summons.” Pa.R.C.P. 1009. Service under this rule is usually made by the sheriff.4
B
After service has been made, the court, on petition and answer, perhaps supplemented by depositions, or after hearing, must decide whether to issue an order directing the parties to proceed to arbitration. A variety of situations may develop. For example, the respondent may prove that he is not a party covered by the arbitration agreement,5 or that there is a condition precedent that has not occurred,6 or that the issue is not covered by the agreement.7 In any of such cases, the court will dismiss the petition. If, however, the court is satisfied that the respondent is in default, it will issue an order directing the parties to proceed to arbitration.
*545C
Usually, no doubt, the parties will proceed to arbitration. If, however, one party refuses to comply, further proceedings will be required:
The effect of a refusal to proceed depends upon the stage of the proceedings when the refusal supervenes. If the dispute has been submitted but no arbitrators chosen there Was, until 1927 ... no remedy to compel the choice of arbitrators. If the arbitrators have been chosen and a time set for hearing when one of the parties declines to proceed [the arbitrators have authority to dispose of the case] . . . ”
11 Standard Pennsylvania Practice 510.
If the failure to comply with the court’s order is due to one party’s refusal to pick arbitrators, the other party may make an application under § 4 of the Act, asking the court to “designate and appoint arbitrators.” The party making this application need not be the “aggrieved party” who initially petitioned the court under § 3 of the Act.8
Section 4 does not specify how an application for the appointment of arbitrators is to be served. This does not, however, represent a failure or oversight on the part of the legislature. No specification is needed. Since the matter is already before the court, by virtue of the petition filed and served under § 3 of the Act, the usual procedure applies, when the application, or motion or petition, is other than one used to initiate an action. This procedure is specified in Pa.R.C.P. 233, which provides in part:
All legal papers, except writs and pleadings, to be served upon a party under any Rule of Civil Procedure including but not limited to motions, petitions, answers *546thereto, rules, orders, notices, interrogatories and answers thereto, shall be served by leaving a copy for or mailing a copy to him at the address of the party or his attorney of record endorsed on an appearance or prior pleading of the party, but if there is no such endorsement then
(1) within the county in which the action is pending by leaving a copy for or mailing a copy to him at the residence or place of business of the party;
(2) outside the county in which the action is pending, whether or not within the Commonwealth, by
(a) having a competent adult hand a copy to the person to be served; or
(b) leaving a copy at or mailing a copy by registered mail to the last known address of the party to be served: or
(c) if no address is known, publication in such manner as the court by general rule or special order shall direct.
Once arbitrators have been appointed by the court, the disposition of the matters in dispute is the province of the arbitrators.
II
When the foregoing is applied to the present case, the appropriate disposition is apparent. Examination of the record shows that appellee never filed a petition under § 3 of the Act. Therefore appellee’s application under § 4 was not properly before the court, and it should have been dismissed.

. Section 4 provides in part: “If in the agreement provision be made for a method of naming or appointing arbitrators . . . or if a method be provided and any party thereto shall fail to avail himself of such method . . . upon the application of either party to the controversy, the court shall designate and appoint arbitrators.”

. Section 3 provides in part: “The party aggrieved by the alleged failure, neglect, or refusal of another to perform under a written agreement for arbitration, may petition the court of common pleas . . . for an order to show cause why such arbitration should not proceed in the manner provided for in such agreement. Five days’ notice in writing of such application shall be served upon the party in default. Service thereof shall be made in the manner provided by law for the service of a summons. . . ”

. I agree with the majority that the fact that § 4 does not specify a method of service does not mean that an ex parte proceeding is authorized. I also agree that “service of process in accordance with the Rules of Civil Procedure ... is essential to the jurisdiction of the court over the person.” Majority opinion at p. 541. Therefore the Rules of Civil Procedure do apply to this proceeding.

. Pa.R.C.P. 1009 contains several cross-references to other rules, according to the type of defendant. In the instant case the defendant is a corporation and would be served under Rule 2180.

. Goldstein v. International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union, 328 Pa. 385, 196 A. 43 (1938).

. Dickens v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, 351 Pa. 252, 40 A.2d 421 (1945).

. J. S. Cornell & Son, Inc. v. Rosenwald, 339 Pa. 18, 13 A.2d 716 (1940).

. Silk Service Corp. v. Neward Silk Co., 26 Luz.Leg.Reg.Rep. 339 (1931).