Keystone Wire & Iron Works, Inc. v. Van Cor, Inc.

Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas

Keystone Wire & Iron Works, Inc. v. Van Cor, Inc.

75 Pa. D. & C.2d 250, 1976 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 213

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County

DecidedFebruary 19, 1976

Docketno. 1568

StatusPublished

This text of 75 Pa. D. & C.2d 250 (Keystone Wire & Iron Works, Inc. v. Van Cor, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Keystone Wire & Iron Works, Inc. v. Van Cor, Inc., 75 Pa. D. & C.2d 250, 1976 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 213 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

GREENBERG, J.,

This matter involves a petition for appointment of an arbitrator for one party to a contract who allegedly did not appoint an arbitrator in accordance with the pertinent provisions of the contract relating to disputes.

Respondent opposes the petition on the sole ground that it was served upon counsel and not the party in violation of the appropriate rules of civil procedure, reserving the right to contest the merits of the petition. While this, in itself, is not proper, since all matters in opposition to the petition should be raised at one time, because of the circumstances here, we will permit respondent to raise any and all [251]*251further matters in opposition to the petition within 20 days of the date of this order.

We believe that under all the circumstances of this case, service upon counsel accomplishes all thatis necessary in the way of notice, opportunity to plead, etc.

To now compel petitioner to serve respondent when it is obvious that counsel has been involved during the course of the dispute, would indeed be an improper favoring of form over substance and would accomplish nothing except to further delay this matter.

Accordingly, we enter the following

ORDER

And now, February 19, 1976, respondent’s objection as to service is overruled, with leave to respondent to file an answer to the petition within 20 days of the date of this order.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

GREENBERG, J.,

This matter involves a petition for appointment of an arbitrator for one party to a contract who allegedly did not appoint an arbitrator in accordance with the pertinent provisions of the contract relating to disputes.

Respondent opposes the petition on the sole ground that it was served upon counsel and not the party in violation of the appropriate rules of civil procedure, reserving the right to contest the merits of the petition. While this, in itself, is not proper, since all matters in opposition to the petition should be raised at one time, because of the circumstances here, we will permit respondent to raise any and all [251]*251further matters in opposition to the petition within 20 days of the date of this order.

We believe that under all the circumstances of this case, service upon counsel accomplishes all thatis necessary in the way of notice, opportunity to plead, etc.

To now compel petitioner to serve respondent when it is obvious that counsel has been involved during the course of the dispute, would indeed be an improper favoring of form over substance and would accomplish nothing except to further delay this matter.

Accordingly, we enter the following

ORDER

And now, February 19, 1976, respondent’s objection as to service is overruled, with leave to respondent to file an answer to the petition within 20 days of the date of this order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

75 Pa. D. & C.2d 250, 1976 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 213, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keystone-wire-iron-works-inc-v-van-cor-inc-pactcomplphilad-1976.