Opinion
Argued November 26, 1973
Decided January 24, 1974
Before EAGEN, O'BRIEN, ROBERTS, POMEROY, NIX and MANDERINO, JJ.
Appeal, No. 204, Jan. T., 1973, from decree of Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, No. 72-6653, in case of Capezio Things, Inc. v. The Wynnewood Meredith Corp. and Ronald Lavin and Melissa Lavin. Appeal quashed.
Equity.
Preliminary objections by defendant sustained in part and plaintiff ordered to file a more specific pleading, opinion by TREDINNICK, J. Defendant appealed.
Edwin L. Scherlis, with him Frank and Margolis, for appellants.
Michael M. Goss, with him Weinstein, Goss Katzenstein, for appellee.
Appeals — Final or interlocutory order — Order denying defendant's preliminary objections to the jurisdiction of the court — Equity.
Mr. Chief Justice JONES took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Mr. Justice MANDERINO filed a dissenting opinion.
Appeal quashed. See Sucevic v. Johnson, 435 Pa. 128, 255 A.2d 556 (1969), Shaw Elec. Co. v. I.B.E.W. Loc. U. No. 98, 422 Pa. 211, 220 A.2d 889 (1966).
Mr. Chief Justice JONES took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
I dissent because this appeal should not be quashed. The appellee, as plaintiff in the trial court, filed a complaint in equity alleging a breach of contract and requesting equitable relief. The appellant filed preliminary objections challenging the jurisdiction of the court because the contract between the parties provided that disputes between the parties would be settled by arbitration. The order of the trial court, although interlocutory, is appealable. Act of March 5, 1925, P. L. 23, § 1, 12 P.S. 672. Sucevic v. Johnson, 435 Pa. 128, 255 A.2d 556 (1969), and Shaw Elec. Co. v. I.B.E.W. Loc. U. No. 98, 422 Pa. 211, 220 A.2d 889 (1966), do not hold otherwise.
The statutory law of Pennsylvania specifically provides: "An appeal may be taken to the Supreme or Superior Court, as in cases of final judgments . . . from an order either directing or refusing to direct the parties to proceed to arbitration." Act of April 25. 1927, P. L. 381, § 15, as amended, Act of June 21, 1935, P. L. 400, § 2, 5 Pa.C.S.A. § 175(b).
The above statute applies to all contracts which provide for arbitration, and is therefore applicable to this case. The majority ignores the statute without explanation or justification.