W. V. PANGBORNE CO., INC. v. WARK CO., 460 Pa. 588 (1975)

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.

Appeal No. 121 January Term, 1974, from the Decree of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County at No. 1468 June Term, 1972; Ned L. Hirsh, Judge.

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. Pangborne 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.

Page 589

ROBERTS, J., DISSENTING OPINION

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.