Connelly v. Bender

36 F. Supp. 368, 1941 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3875
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan
DecidedJanuary 7, 1941
Docket2231
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 36 F. Supp. 368 (Connelly v. Bender) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Michigan primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Connelly v. Bender, 36 F. Supp. 368, 1941 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3875 (E.D. Mich. 1941).

Opinion

LEDERLE, District Judge.

On August 29, 1940, plaintiff filed her declaration in the state court at Battle Creek, Michigan, claiming damages for wrongful death of her decedent resulting from an accident involving defendants’ motor vehicle and a locomotive of the Grand Trunk Western Railroad Compány, on which locomotive plaintiff’s decedent was riding at the time of the accident. The case was removed to this court on October 29, 1940, and came at issue on December 3, 1940. In the usual course an order was entered, setting the Pre-Trial Hearing for December 23, 1940,.and a copy of this order was sent to counsel. At this Pre-Trial Hearing the defendants moved to add the Grand Trunk Western Railroad Company as a third-party defendant. Thereupon, plaintiff’s counsel announced that plaintiff had signed a covenant not to sue said Railroad Company, and declined to amend the complaint to claim relief against the Railroad Company. ■

At the Pre-Trial Hearing plaintiff was granted the right to amend her complaint to include an allegation of violation of Mich.Ann. Stat. § 22.764, and it was agreed by counsel that certain exhibits, which were marked by the Reporter, were sufficiently identified and could be received in evidence at the trial without further proof. Counsel also agreed to present a formal order making other concessions that will aid in the speedy disposition of the case.

The issue between plaintiff and defendants is ready for trial. Plaintiff asserts no claim against the proposed third-party defendant, and the addition of such party at this time would cause delay and expense. It therefore follows that the motion to add said Railroad Company as a third-party defendant must be, and it hereby is, overruled.

It is further ordered that this case be placed upon the list of cases ready for trial by this court.

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

Related

A B & C Motor Transp. Co. v. Moger
10 F.R.D. 613 (E.D. New York, 1950)
García Molina v. Government of the Capital
70 P.R. 312 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1949)
García Molina v. Gobierno de la Capital
70 P.R. Dec. 333 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1949)
Bull v. Santa Fe Trail Transp. Co.
6 F.R.D. 7 (D. Nebraska, 1946)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
36 F. Supp. 368, 1941 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3875, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/connelly-v-bender-mied-1941.