Hilton Const. Co. v. Martin Mechanical Contractors, Inc., 39881
| Court | Supreme Court of Georgia |
| Writing for the Court | CLARKE |
| Citation | 308 S.E.2d 830,251 Ga. 701 |
| Parties | HILTON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY v. MARTIN MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC. |
| Docket Number | No. 39881,39881 |
| Decision Date | 16 November 1983 |
Page 830
v.
MARTIN MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC.
[251 Ga. 704] David W. Porter, David A. Rabin, Morris & Manning, Atlanta, for Hilton Const. Co., Inc., et al.
Page 831
Robert D. Marshall, Griffin, Cochran & Marshall, Atlanta, for Martin Mechanical Contractors, Inc.
[251 Ga. 701] CLARKE, Justice.
Certiorari was granted to consider the following questions: whether the Superior Court of Clarke County had jurisdiction to vacate an arbitration award made under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C.A. § 1, et seq.; if so, whether state or federal law should govern the vacation of the award; and whether the failure of the arbitrator to [251 Ga. 702] add a party to the arbitration was a ground for vacating the award.
We find that if the superior court has jurisdiction to vacate as well as confirm an arbitration award under the Federal Arbitration Act, federal law must be applied to the question. However, we find that since under federal law the trial judge properly confirmed the award, the question of whether the court would have had jurisdiction to vacate it is not before us.
Hilton Construction Company, Inc., and Zac Smith & Company, a joint venture (Hilton) entered into a contract with the Hospital Authority of Clarke County for renovations and additions to Athens General Hospital. Hilton, as general contractor, entered into various subcontracts, including one with Martin Mechanical Contractors, Inc. (Martin), for heating, ventilating and air conditioning, and one with Stephenson Associates, Inc. (Stephenson) for plumbing. A dispute arose as to responsibility for steam connection work. Hilton contended that the work was the responsibility of Martin or Stephenson. Both denied responsibility. Martin did the work under protest and filed for arbitration as to compensation in accordance with provisions of the prime contract between Hilton and the owner, which was incorporated by reference into the subcontract with Martin, and of the subcontract itself.
Martin obtained an award following arbitration pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act. Hilton then applied to the Superior Court of Clarke County for vacation of the award under 9 U.S.C.A. § 10. Martin counterclaimed for a confirmation of the award. Both sides moved for summary judgment and the trial court denied Hilton's motion and granted Martin's, thereby confirming the award. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court holding that while state courts may apply 9 U.S.C.A. § 9 confirming an arbitration award under the Federal Arbitration Act, state courts have no jurisdiction to vacate an award pursuant to § 10 of the Act. Hilton Construction Co., Inc. v. Martin Mechanical Contractors, Inc., 166 Ga.App. 40, 303 S.E.2d 119 (1983).
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wise v. Tidal Const. Co., Inc., A03A0859.
...Assoc. v. Blanck-Alvarez, Inc., 251 Ga. 704, 707(1), 309 S.E.2d 364 (1983); Hilton Constr. Co. v. Martin Mechanical Contractors, 251 Ga. 701, 308 S.E.2d 830 (1983). "Where such a transaction involves commerce, within the meaning of the Federal Arbitration Statute, the state law and policy w......
-
Results Oriented, Inc. v. Crawford, No. A00A0540-A00A0542.
...we apply the federal law of arbitrability to the Installment Contract. Volt, supra; Hilton Constr. Co. v. Martin Mechanical Contractors, 251 Ga. 701, 703, 308 S.E.2d 830 (1983), following Moses H. Cone Mem. Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24, 103 S.Ct. 927, 74 L.Ed.2d 765 Sectio......
-
BDO USA, LLP v. Coe, A14A1455.
...has jurisdiction over a motion to compel arbitration under § 4 of the FAA. See Hilton Constr. Co. v. Martin Mechanical Contractors, Inc., 251 Ga. 701, 703, 308 S.E.2d 830 (1983) (finding “the question of the state court jurisdiction of § 4... is unsettled”). As our Supreme Court recently no......
-
Simmons Co. v. Deutsche Financial Services Corp., A99A2226.
...notwithstanding any state substantive or procedural policies to the contrary." See Hilton Constr. Co. v. Martin Mechanical Contractors, 251 Ga. 701, 703, 308 S.E.2d 830 (1983) (quoting this language from Cone in applying the FAA). The Supreme Court's subsequent decision in Volt clarified it......