Steelform Contracting Co. v. Baldwin Contracting Co.

California Court of Appeal

Steelform Contracting Co. v. Baldwin Contracting Co.

209 Cal. App. 2d 177, 25 Cal. Rptr. 916, 1962 Cal. App. LEXIS 1672

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedOctober 31, 1962

DocketCiv. No. 20350

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 209 Cal. App. 2d 177 (Steelform Contracting Co. v. Baldwin Contracting Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Steelform Contracting Co. v. Baldwin Contracting Co., 209 Cal. App. 2d 177, 25 Cal. Rptr. 916, 1962 Cal. App. LEXIS 1672 (Cal. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

DEVINE, J.

At the time of the hearing of oral argument, the court expressed doubt that the order from which the appeal was taken is appealable, and directed counsel for appellant to demonstrate its appealability. Appellant has filed a brief on the subject. We find that the order is not appealable, and we dismiss the appeal on our- own motion.

Appellant, one party to an arbitration agreement, petitioned the superior court to annul the designation of an arbitrator selected by the other party to the agreement, or to require that said other party withdraw its designation and substitute another, upon the ground that the arbitrator selected is a stockholder and employee of the other party and a witness to the matters which are to be arbitrated. The court denied the petition. The petition does not allege refusal of the other party to arbitrate, but relates to the qualifications of one of the three arbitrators provided for in the contract.

Section 1294 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for appeals from judgments entered upon arbitration and from four classes of orders in arbitration proceedings. The order made herein is not one of these, although perhaps it will be reviewable after judgment under section 1294.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. An order denying a petition to compel arbitration is appealable (Code Civ. Proe., § 1294, subd. (a)), but this is not such an order.

The appeal is dismissed.

Draper, P. J., and Salsman, J., concurred.

Appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied December 26, 1962.

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

DEVINE, J.

At the time of the hearing of oral argument, the court expressed doubt that the order from which the appeal was taken is appealable, and directed counsel for appellant to demonstrate its appealability. Appellant has filed a brief on the subject. We find that the order is not appealable, and we dismiss the appeal on our- own motion.

Appellant, one party to an arbitration agreement, petitioned the superior court to annul the designation of an arbitrator selected by the other party to the agreement, or to require that said other party withdraw its designation and substitute another, upon the ground that the arbitrator selected is a stockholder and employee of the other party and a witness to the matters which are to be arbitrated. The court denied the petition. The petition does not allege refusal of the other party to arbitrate, but relates to the qualifications of one of the three arbitrators provided for in the contract.

Section 1294 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for appeals from judgments entered upon arbitration and from four classes of orders in arbitration proceedings. The order made herein is not one of these, although perhaps it will be reviewable after judgment under section 1294.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. An order denying a petition to compel arbitration is appealable (Code Civ. Proe., § 1294, subd. (a)), but this is not such an order.

The appeal is dismissed.

Draper, P. J., and Salsman, J., concurred.

Appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied December 26, 1962.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 Cal. App. 2d 177, 25 Cal. Rptr. 916, 1962 Cal. App. LEXIS 1672, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steelform-contracting-co-v-baldwin-contracting-co-calctapp-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack