Sechrist v. Dyke
| Decision Date | 18 June 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 7613.,7613. |
| Citation | 256 F.2d 881 |
| Parties | William W. SECHRIST, Buster Miller, and Arthur A. Gallagher and Lottie Gallagher, Trustees of the Estate of Edward A. Gallagher, deceased, t/a E. A. Gallagher & Sons, Appellants, v. Harold DYKE and Novick Transfer Company, Inc., Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Paul F. Due, Baltimore, Md., for appellants.
Frederick J. Green, Jr., Baltimore, Md. (James J. Lindsay, Baltimore, Md., on the brief), for Novick Transfer Co., Inc., appellee.
J. Randolph Larrick, John F. Anderson, Winchester, Va., A. Adgate Duer, and Niles, Barton, Yost & Dankmeyer, Baltimore, Md., on the brief, for Harold Dyke, appellee.
Before SOBELOFF, Chief Judge, HAYNSWORTH, Circuit Judge, and PAUL, District Judge.
The appellants in this case are William W. Sechrist, Buster Miller, and Arthur A. Gallagher and Lottie Gallagher, Trustees of the estate of Edward A. Gallagher, trading as E. A. Gallagher & Sons. They are respectively citizens of North Carolina, Maryland and Pennsylvania and are defendants in an action brought against them by Harold Dyke, a citizen of Virginia, which is pending in the District Court for the District of Maryland. The action grew out of a collision between two tractor-trailers as a result of which personal injuries were suffered by Dyke, who was the driver of one of the vehicles.
The appeal is taken from an order of the District Court, dated November 25, 1957, by which the court denied the petition of appellants to bring in Novick Transfer Company, Inc., a Virginia corporation, as a third party defendant — Novick Transfer being the owner of the vehicle operated by the plaintiff, Dyke. The third-party complaint alleged that Dyke's injuries were due to improper loading of the Novick trailer and that Novick, as a joint tort feasor, was liable for all or part of any amount which Dyke might recover against appellants.
In an opinion delivered by the District Court it pointed out that the request to bring in the third-party was not on the basis that it was liable to the defendants as an indemnitor but on the ground that it was a joint tort feasor subject to contribute jointly to any damages recovered by the plaintiff. The court also noted that if Novick was a joint tort feasor the plaintiff could have made it a defendant in the case except for the identity of citizenship. Under these circumstances the court expressed the opinion that there was question as to whether Novick could be brought in as third-party defendant without ousting the jurisdiction of the court.
The District Court, however, felt it unnecessary to resolve the question of the possible jurisdictional failure which might result from bringing in Novick. It expressed the opinion that the peculiar circumstances of the case were such as that the introduction of Novick as a third-party defendant would complicate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Travelers Insurance Co. v. Busy Electric Co.
...care and protection of all materials delivered and work performed until completion and final acceptance * * *." 5 Cf. Sechrist v. Dyke, 4 Cir., 1948, 256 F.2d 881; Ford Motor Co. v. Milby, 4 Cir., 1954, 210 F.2d 6 See Batson-Cook Co. v. Industrial Steel Erectors, 5 Cir., 1958, 257 F.2d 410,......
-
Paliaga v. Luckenbach Steamship Company
...judge below surely intended that the litigation before him was at an end. However, the stevedore calls our attention to Sechrist v. Dyke, 256 F.2d 881 (4 Cir. 1958). In that case the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that a judgment dismissing a third-party complaint was not a fi......
-
State of Minn. v. Pickands Mather & Co.
...65 S.Ct. 631, 633, 89 L.Ed. 911 (1945), and thus was not a "final decision" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See Sechrist v. Dyke, 256 F.2d 881 (4th Cir. 1958). Nor was the district court's order an ultimate disposition of a cognizable claim for relief entered in the course of a mult......
-
New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. Novick Transfer Co.
...Gallagher's right to later seek contribution. Gallagher appealed to this court but the appeal was dismissed as premature. Sechrist v. Dyke, 4 Cir., 1958, 256 F.2d 881. Thereafter, New Amsterdam, Gallagher's liability insurer, settled with Dyke for $43,000, took from Dyke a release which for......