Bossard v. McGwinn, 5.
| Decision Date | 23 March 1939 |
| Docket Number | No. 5.,5. |
| Citation | 27 F. Supp. 412 |
| Parties | BOSSARD et ux. v. McGWINN et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
Jos. V. Agresti, of Erie, Pa., for plaintiffs.
Brooks, Curtze & Silin, of Erie, Pa., for McGwinn.
Hosbach & Gleeten, of Erie, Pa., for third-party defendant.
This is an action originally brought in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County, Pennsylvania, by plaintiffs to recover from the defendant McGwinn damages for personal injuries alleged to have been received by plaintiff, Elsie M. Bossard, when she was riding as a passenger in an automobile owned and operated by the third party defendant Siegel, which came into collision with an automobile driven by the defendant McGwinn. This collision, Mrs. Bossard alleged, was caused by the negligence of the defendant McGwinn.
McGwinn is a citizen of the State of Ohio. The amount in controversy is over $3,000 exclusive of interest and costs. On the petition of McGwinn the case was removed into this court.
Whereupon, the defendant McGwinn filed a motion in this court under Rule 14 (a) of the New Rules for Civil Procedure, 28 U.SC.A. following section 723c, to make John W. Siegel, the driver of the car in which the plaintiff, Elsie M. Bossard, was riding at the time of the collision, a third-party defendant, and for leave to serve a summons and complaint on John W. Siegel, a person who is not a party to the action, and who is, or may be, liable to the defendant McGwinn, or to the plaintiffs, for all or part of the plaintiffs' claim against the defendant McGwinn. The court granted this motion.
Siegel, a resident of this District, was served with a summons and complaint under this rule, has appeared specially, and moved that the summons and complaint making him a third-party defendant be quashed. This motion to quash is based on the fact that the plaintiffs and the third-party defendant Siegel are both residents of Pennsylvania in this District. Of course, this court would have no original jurisdiction of a suit by plaintiffs against Siegel. As we construe Rule 14 as to third parties, the third-party claim is not to be regarded as such a claim as requires independent jurisdictional grounds, but as an ancillary claim to the original suit. Before the new rules even, this ancillary jurisdiction was applied in equity in the Federal court. See Alexander v. Hillman, 296 U.S. 222, 56 S. Ct. 204, 80 L.Ed. 192. This law-suit was properly removed to the Federal Court, and the litigation will not be completely terminated unless ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shannon v. Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co.
...S. Ct. 204, 80 L.Ed. 192. Cases subsequent to the Rules: Crim v. Lumbermen's Mut. Casualty Co., D.C., 26 F.Supp. 715, 718; Bossard v. McGwinn, D.C., 27 F.Supp. 412; Kravas et al. v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. Peoples-Pittsburgh Trust Co. v. Davis, D.C., 28 F.Supp. 66; Satink v. Townsh......
-
United States v. Acord
...29 F.Supp. 112, 116; Crum v. Appalachian Electric Power Co., D.C.W.Va., 29 F.Supp. 90, 91; Id., D.C., 27 F.Supp. 138; Bossard v. McGwinn, D.C.Pa., 27 F.Supp. 412; Tullgren v. Jasper, D.C. Md., 27 F.Supp. 413, 417; Kravas v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., D.C. Pa., 28 F.Supp. 66, 67; Lawr......
-
Lewis v. United Air Lines Transport Corporation
...of the court having jurisdiction over the principal suit; Crum v. Appalachian Electric Co., D. C., 27 F. Supp. 138; Bossard v. McGwinn, D. C., 27 F.Supp. 412; Tullgren v. Jasper, D. C., 27 F.Supp. 413. In these cases, the question of venue seems not to have been directly involved. However, ......
-
Gray v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.
...as ancillary to the main claim, and venue and jurisdiction are not to be considered. For this position see: Bossard et ux. v. McGwinn et al., D.C., 27 F.Supp. 412; Kravas et al. v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., D.C., 28 F.Supp. 66; Lewis v. United Air Lines Transport Corporation et al.,......