George Smith v. Pan-Atlantic Steamship Corporation (Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff), (Ryan Stevedoring Company, Inc., Third-Party Defendant)

Third Circuit

George Smith v. Pan-Atlantic Steamship Corporation (Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff), (Ryan Stevedoring Company, Inc., Third-Party Defendant)

254 F.2d 600, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 5298, 1958 A.M.C. 1321

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedApril 30, 1958

Docket12388_1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 254 F.2d 600 (George Smith v. Pan-Atlantic Steamship Corporation (Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff), (Ryan Stevedoring Company, Inc., Third-Party Defendant)) 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

George Smith v. Pan-Atlantic Steamship Corporation (Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff), (Ryan Stevedoring Company, Inc., Third-Party Defendant), 254 F.2d 600, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 5298, 1958 A.M.C. 1321 (3d Cir. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

254 F.2d 600

George SMITH
v.
PAN-ATLANTIC STEAMSHIP CORPORATION (Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff), Appellant (Ryan Stevedoring Company, Inc., Third-Party Defendant).

No. 12388.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued April 14, 1958.

Decided April 30, 1958.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; William H. Kirkpatrick, Judge.

Harrison G. Kildare, Philadelphia, Pa. (Rawle & Henderson, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellant.

Thomas F. Mount, Philadelphia, Pa., T. E. Byrne, Jr., Philadelphia, Pa. (Krusen, Evans & Shaw, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.

Before GOODRICH, McLAUGHLIN and STALEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal a shipowner is seeking indemnity from a stevedoring company to recover for damages paid to an injured employee of the stevedoring company. The injured longshoreman is no longer in the case and the present contest is solely between the shipowner and the company employed to load the ship.

We find no essential difference between this case and our own decision in Hagans v. Farrell Lines, Inc., 3 Cir., 1956, 237 F.2d 477, although a distinction has been urged. Consequently, the judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

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