No. 2301 October Term, 1979, Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, Civil Division, at No. 4921 May Term, 1971.
Before Brosky, Johnson and Popovich, JJ.
On May 28, 1977, Provident Consumer Discount Company ("Provident") brought an action in assumpsit against appellant-Robbie Martin for defaulting on a note. Appellant, in turn, filed a responsive pleading and a complaint against additional defendants, William Robinson, his wife Lillian Robinson, David L. Stinson and Samuel Rogen. The matter went to arbitration, and the panel ruled in favor of Provident as to its cause of action involving appellant, and against the appellant in her cause of action involving the additional defendants.
Appellant filed a timely appeal from the Board's award, to which Provident filed a Motion to Quash on the basis of nonpayment of costs. The appeal was quashed by the Hon. Judge Greenberg on August 30, 1979. Prior to the entry of the court Order appellant, on August 15, 1979, filed a separate and distinct Petition to Set Aside Award of Arbitrators ("Petition"). This Petition was denied by Order of Court on October 3, 1979; the instant appeal is from said Order.
Appellant contends on appeal that the lower court improperly denied her Petition. We affirm on the Opinion of the Court below, which is to be used for allocatur purposes.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA
TRIAL DIVISION - CIVIL SECTION
PROVIDENT CONSUMER DISCOUNT COMPANY vs. ROBBIE MARTIN ET AL.
On October 3, 1979, the undersigned denied defendant, Robbie Martin's Petition to Set Aside Award of Arbitrators.
The defendant has filed an appeal with Superior Court.
1. On May 28, 1971, the plaintiff, Provident Consumer Discount Company filed a complaint in assumpsit against the defendant, Mrs. Robbie Martin, alleging that the defendant had defaulted on a note and owed plaintiff $2,183.64 plus collection charges of $436.60.
2. On July 12, 1971, the defendant, by her attorney, David A. Scholl, Esq., of Community Legal Services, Inc., filed an answer, containing new matter and a counterclaim. She asserted that the loans involved the purchase of two properties and that Samuel Rogen, an employee of the plaintiff, and William Robinson and David Stinson had fraudulently induced her to sign a loan agreement for money that had already been repaid.
3. On March 21, 1972, with leave of court, the defendant filed a complaint against additional defendants William Robinson, Lillian M. Robinson, his ...