Abraham v. National Biscuit Co., 6154.
Citation | 111 ALR 1313,89 F.2d 266 |
Decision Date | 20 April 1937 |
Docket Number | No. 6154.,6154. |
Parties | ABRAHAM v. NATIONAL BISCUIT CO. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit) |
John E. Evans, Jr., Margiotti, Pugliese, Evans & Buckley, and Alex J. Bielski, all of Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellant.
Harold E. McCamey, H. A. Robinson, and Dickie, Robinson & McCamey, all of Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellee.
Before BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge, and WELSH and MARIS, District Judges.
This was a negligence action for damages for the death of plaintiff's husband resulting from an automobile accident. The accident occurred in the borough of Glassport, Allegheny county, Pa. The deceased was riding as a guest in a Chevrolet car operated by David Kail. He received the injuries from which he died when that car came into collision with a truck belonging to the National Biscuit Company operated by its employee Edward A. Roth. The plaintiff brought suit against the National Biscuit Company and the latter by scire facias brought David Kail into the case as an additional defendant. The trial resulted in a verdict in favor of the defendant, National Biscuit Company. No verdict was rendered either for or against the additional defendant David Kail. A new trial having been denied and judgment having been entered upon the verdict, plaintiff took the present appeal and has assigned as error certain rulings upon evidence made by the trial judge as well as certain portions of his charge to the jury.
We shall first consider the fifth assignment of error which complains, inter alia, of the following portion of the court's charge to the jury:
As we have seen, David Kail was brought into the case as an additional defendant by the original defendant upon a writ of scire facias which was issued under the Pennsylvania Scire Facias Act of April 10, 1929, P.L. 479, as amended by the Acts of June 22, 1931, P.L. 663, § 2, and May 18, 1933, P.L. 807 (12 P.S. § 141). That act provides:
The writ of scire facias in this case averred that the accident was caused solely by the negligence of the additional defendant and that he was alone liable for the cause of action declared on in the suit. He in his turn filed an affidavit of defense in which he denied that his negligence was responsible for the accident and, on the contrary, averred that it was caused solely by the negligence of the employee of the National Biscuit Company. There was evidence from which the jury might have found that the drivers of both automobiles were negligent, but as we have seen the trial judge charged the jury that they could not find both defendants jointly liable. In doing so, he construed the Pennsylvania Scire Facias Act as this court had done in Yellow Cab Co. v. Rodgers, 61 F.(2d) 729. Since our decision in that case, however, and since the trial of this case in the court below, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in the case of Majewski v. Lempka, 321 Pa. 369, 183 A. 777, 779, has construed the act, as now amended, to authorize a recovery against both the defendant and the additional defendant jointly, even though the writ of scire facias under which the additional defendant is brought upon the record avers that he is solely liable. In that case Mr. Justice Maxey in the opinion of the court said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Shannon v. Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co.
...third party as solely liable, in which event, if the evidence so demands, a joint judgment may be rendered. Abraham v. National Biscuit Co., 3 Cir., 89 F.2d 266, 111 A.L.R. 1313. In that way the same result is reached as if third party had been brought in as jointly liable. Such procedure c......
-
Sreonick v. Sylak
...as if the pleadings had been amended to conform with the trial.5 Defendant also referred to Abraham v. National Biscuit Co., 3 Cir., 89 F.2d 266, 111 A.L.R. 1313. That was an appeal in which plaintiff, not the defendant as in the present appeal, complained of the refusal to permit a joint v......
-
City of Valdosta v. Singleton
......616, 90 Am.St.Rep. 108;. State Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Walton, 142 Ga. 765(1), 83 S.E. 656; Dobbins v. ...23, 60. S.Ct. 416, 84 L.Ed. 558; Abraham v. National Biscuit Co., 3. Cir., 89 F.2d 266, 111 A.L.R. ......
-
City Of Norfolk v. Stephenson
...183 U. S. 115, 22 S.Ct. 45, 46 L.Ed. 111; Union P. R. Co. v. Snow, 231 U.S. 204, 34 S.Ct. 104, 58 L.Ed. 184; Abraham v. National Biscuit Co., 3 Cir., 89 F.2d 266, 111 A.L.R. 1313, Annotation, p. 1317; Ziffrin, Inc. v. United States, 318 U.S. 73, 63 S.Ct. 465, 87 L.Ed. 621; 3 Am.Jur., sec. 1......