Good v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company
| Decision Date | 09 November 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 16536.,16536. |
| Citation | 384 F.2d 989 |
| Parties | Wallace GOOD, Appellant, v. The PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Robert M. Ross, Richter, Lord, Cavanaugh, McCarty & Raynes, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.
Matthew J. Broderick, Dechert, Price & Rhoads, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee.
Before HASTIE, FREEDMAN and SEITZ, Circuit Judges.
When this action for damages for personal injuries under the Federal Employers' Liability Act1 was called for trial settlement discussions ensued between counsel in the presence of the judge and the plaintiff personally. Defendant's counsel offered to pay the amount which the judge recommended in settlement. That evening after discussion with his client plaintiff's counsel telephoned acceptance of the offer to defendant's counsel. It is not disputed and indeed is conceded that the offer was made, that it was accepted and that plaintiff's counsel had authority to negotiate for a settlement, and to accept defendant's offer and settle the case.
Shortly afterward, when defendant transmitted the customary form of release, plaintiff refused to sign it and disavowed the settlement. Although the case had been removed from the calendar because plaintiff's counsel had already notified the clerk of the district court of the settlement, the case was then restored to the calendar. A jury trial resulted in a verdict substantially in excess of the amount of the settlement. The district court ultimately entered the judgment N.O.V. in favor of the defendant on the ground that the settlement barred the recovery.
The settlement agreement which was entered into by duly authorized counsel expressed the intention to settle the case for the agreed amount and was valid and binding despite the absence of any writing or formality. See Main Line Theatres, Inc. v. Paramount Film Distributing Corp., 298 F.2d 801 (3 Cir.) cert. denied, 370 U.S. 939, 82 S.Ct. 1585, 8 L.Ed.2d 807 (1962). The tender of a release did not reopen the agreement or make its execution a condition to the settlement itself. See Main Line Theatres, Inc. v. Paramount Film Distributing Corp., supra.
The fact that this action was brought under the Federal Employers' Liability Act does not remove it from the realm of the law of contracts. The obligation to remain bound by a valid agreement of settlement duly entered into by counsel with the authority of his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Excelsior Ins. Co. v. Pennsbury Pain Center
...rise to the lawsuit which is settled."); See also Pascarella v. Bruck, 190 N.J.Super. at 124, 462 A.2d 186 (citing Good v. Pennsylvania R.R. 384 F.2d 989, 990 (3d Cir.1967)). Thus, New Jersey's basic contract principles of law Traditional contract law rules provide that a contract arises fr......
-
McCall-Bey v. Franzen
...upon the parties, whether or not made in the presence of the court and even in the absence of a writing." See also Good v. Pennsylvania RR, 384 F.2d 989, 990 (3d Cir.1967); Main Line Theatres v. Paramount Film Distributors, 298 F.2d 801, 802 n. 1 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 370 U.S. 939, 82 S.......
-
Fox v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 83-5666
...vein, the posture of the litigation here is akin to those cases where enforcement of a FELA settlement is sought. Good v. Pennsylvania Railroad, 384 F.2d 989 (3d Cir.1967). See also Napier v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co., 582 F.2d 1344 (4th In Bay, the court relied on a congressional repor......
-
In re Galluzzo
...198-1 at 3). 166. (Docket No. 200-1 at 3). 167. See Green v. John H. Lewis & Co., 436 F.2d 389, 390 (3d Cir. 1970); cf. Good v. Pa. R.R. Co., 384 F.2d 989 (3d Cir. 1957) (settlement agreement). 168. Democratic Nat. Comm. v. Republican Nat. Comm., 673 F.3d 192, 201 (3d Cir. 2012) (quoting U.......