Clarvit v. J. G. White Engineering Corp.

S.D. New York

Clarvit v. J. G. White Engineering Corp.

7 F.R.D. 143, 1945 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1459

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York

DecidedFebruary 7, 1945

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 7 F.R.D. 143 (Clarvit v. J. G. White Engineering Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Clarvit v. J. G. White Engineering Corp., 7 F.R.D. 143, 1945 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1459 (S.D.N.Y. 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

COXE, District Judge.

The third-party complaint in this case does not seek to hold Preload Company as a joint tort-feasor, but rather as an indemnitor on a remedy over; it is not, therefore, open to objection under Brown v. Cranston, 2 Cir., 132 F.2d 631, 148 A.L.R. 1178, certiorari denied. Cranston v. Thompson, 319 U.S. 741, 63 S.Ct. 1028, 87 L.Ed. 1698. See Tomko v. City Bank Farmers Trust Co., D.C., 3 F.R.D. 31. Whether the White Company is entitled to any benefit from the liability clauses of the contract between the Government and [144]*144Preload Company is doubtful, but that question can best be determined at the trial after the facts have been shown. The allegations of the third-party complaint still remain, however, to the effect that the White Company was, at most, guilty only of passive or secondary negligence, and the Preload Company guilty of primary negligence. These allegations, if proved, are enough under the New York authorities. Oceanic Steam Navigation Co. v. Compania Transatlantica Espanola, 134 N.Y. 461, 31 N.E. 987, 30 Am.St.Rep. 685; Phoenix Bridge Co. v. Creem, 102 App.Div. 354, 92 N.Y.S. 855, affirmed 185 N.Y. 580, 78 N.E. 1110; Schwartz v. Merola Bros. Construction Corp., 290 N.Y. 145, 48 N.E.2d 299. The motion of the third-party defendant, Preload Company, to dismiss the third-party complaint is denied.

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

COXE, District Judge.

The third-party complaint in this case does not seek to hold Preload Company as a joint tort-feasor, but rather as an indemnitor on a remedy over; it is not, therefore, open to objection under Brown v. Cranston, 2 Cir., 132 F.2d 631, 148 A.L.R. 1178, certiorari denied. Cranston v. Thompson, 319 U.S. 741, 63 S.Ct. 1028, 87 L.Ed. 1698. See Tomko v. City Bank Farmers Trust Co., D.C., 3 F.R.D. 31. Whether the White Company is entitled to any benefit from the liability clauses of the contract between the Government and [144]*144Preload Company is doubtful, but that question can best be determined at the trial after the facts have been shown. The allegations of the third-party complaint still remain, however, to the effect that the White Company was, at most, guilty only of passive or secondary negligence, and the Preload Company guilty of primary negligence. These allegations, if proved, are enough under the New York authorities. Oceanic Steam Navigation Co. v. Compania Transatlantica Espanola, 134 N.Y. 461, 31 N.E. 987, 30 Am.St.Rep. 685; Phoenix Bridge Co. v. Creem, 102 App.Div. 354, 92 N.Y.S. 855, affirmed 185 N.Y. 580, 78 N.E. 1110; Schwartz v. Merola Bros. Construction Corp., 290 N.Y. 145, 48 N.E.2d 299. The motion of the third-party defendant, Preload Company, to dismiss the third-party complaint is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 F.R.D. 143, 1945 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1459, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clarvit-v-j-g-white-engineering-corp-nysd-1945.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack