Alberts v. Ford Motor Co.

Third Circuit

Alberts v. Ford Motor Co.

292 F.2d 494

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedJuly 10, 1961

DocketNos. 13524, 13525

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 292 F.2d 494 (Alberts v. Ford Motor Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alberts v. Ford Motor Co., 292 F.2d 494 (3d Cir. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The jury in answer to the first interrogatory propounded under the special verdict pursuant to Rule 49(a), Fed.R.Civ.Proc., 28 U.S.C., found the respective Lincoln Continental automobiles were “fit for the ordinary purpose for which automobiles are used.” In view of this fact it makes no difference that the court did not charge with respect to express warranty. We perceive no error in the record prejudicial to the plaintiffs' causes. Consequently, the judgments will be affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The jury in answer to the first interrogatory propounded under the special verdict pursuant to Rule 49(a), Fed.R.Civ.Proc., 28 U.S.C., found the respective Lincoln Continental automobiles were “fit for the ordinary purpose for which automobiles are used.” In view of this fact it makes no difference that the court did not charge with respect to express warranty. We perceive no error in the record prejudicial to the plaintiffs' causes. Consequently, the judgments will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

292 F.2d 494, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alberts-v-ford-motor-co-ca3-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack