George Peterson v. Herman S. Moore

Third Circuit

George Peterson v. Herman S. Moore

267 F.2d 496, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 3730

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·Decided June 5, 1959·No. 12863·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing an action in tort. for want of prosecution. The case was here once before, but we dismissed because there was no final judgment, but instead an outstanding order for a new trial. 3d Cir., 1958, 254 F.2d 853. We think that the subsequent proceedings may have been influenced by a misunderstanding on the part of the plaintiff or his counsel, and that the ends of fairness will be best served by vacating the judgment entered under Rule 41(b) F.R.Civ.P., 28 U.S.C.A., and sending the case back for a new trial if the plaintiff so desires.

The judgment of the district court is vacated and the case remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing an action in tort. for want of prosecution. The case was here once before, but we dismissed because there was no final judgment, but instead an outstanding order for a new trial. 3d Cir., 1958, 254 F.2d 853. We think that the subsequent proceedings may have been influenced by a misunderstanding on the part of the plaintiff or his counsel, and that the ends of fairness will be best served by vacating the judgment entered under Rule 41(b) F.R.Civ.P., 28 U.S.C.A., and sending the case back for a new trial if the plaintiff so desires.

The judgment of the district court is vacated and the case remanded.

George Peterson v. Herman S. Moore, 267 F.2d 496, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 3730 (3d Cir. 1959).

Pincite

267 F.2d 496 (George Peterson v. Herman S. Moore) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related