of the attorney-client relationship. Hartmann owns all the stock of the plaintiff and Trader Horn, and the officers and directors of both corporations are the same.
Defendants' motion to dismiss places upon plaintiff the burden of showing that this Court has jurisdiction. McNutt v. General motors Corp., 1939, 298 U.S. 178, 183-189, 56 S. Ct. 780, 80 L. Ed. 1135. Plaintiff claims, however, that it has established the jurisdictional facts beyond any doubt by proof of the written assignment and the testimony of Hartmann concerning the consideration for the assignment at the pre-trial oral deposition hearing. We cannot agree with this claim even though it appears on the surface that the assignment was bona fide. It so happens that plaintiff's officers, agents and employees are the only people having knowledge of the facts relating to the assignment. The only way that defendants can impeach Hartmann's pre-trial deposition testimony is by their cross-examining Hartmann or plaintiff's other officers and agents. The fact that the officers and directors of plaintiff and Trader Horn are identical, and that Hartmann is the sole owner of the stock of both of these corporations, coupled with the manner in which Hartmann answered questions put to him at the oral deposition hearing gives one the impression that there is a strong likelihood that his testimony could be impeached at a trial. Under these circumstances, defendants should not be summarily cut off from their right to have a jury disbelieve Hartmann and find that Trader Horn never relinquished all rights and interest in the arbitration award, or that Trader Horn transferred the award to plaintiff for the sole purpose of being able, through the plaintiff, to bring an action on the award in a federal district court. See Steinberg v. Toro, supra, 95 F.Supp. at pages 797-798.
Defendants give as an additional reason for this Court's lack of jurisdiction the proposition that conformation and recovery of an arbitration award in Pennsylvania must be had in the proper court of common pleas of this State as required by the Arbitration Act of 1927, P.L. 381, as amended, 5 Pa.P.S. §§ 161-181. Such a proposition is not the law. The Act of 1927 is remedial only; proceedings under it are cumulative and non-exclusive. The Act did not do away with the right to bring suit to recover an arbitration award. Isaac v. Donegal & Conoy Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 1930, 301 Pa. 351, 152 A. 95; Goldstein v. International, etc., 1938, 328 Pa. 385, 394, 196 A. 43; Sukonik v. Shapiro, 1939, 333 Pa. 289, 5 A.2d 108; Lowengrup v. Meislin, 1954, 376 Pa. 463, 103 A.2d 405.
There is nothing in the record to indicate that the parties intended that arbitration was to proceed in conformity with the Act of 1927.
We must assume, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the aribitration award was one at common law.
Accordingly, decision on the motions will be withheld in order to give the plaintiff a chance to prove that this Court has jurisdiction, and the defendants an opportunity to cross-examine the officers of plaintiff and other witnesses which plaintiff may call to testify.