John E. Stevens v. The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, a Foreign Corporation, and Third-Party v. Lucerne Coke Company, a Corporation, Shenango Furnace Company, a Corporation, and Shenango, Inc., a Corporation

Third Circuit

John E. Stevens v. The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, a Foreign Corporation, and Third-Party v. Lucerne Coke Company, a Corporation, Shenango Furnace Company, a Corporation, and Shenango, Inc., a Corporation

394 F.2d 987, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 6768

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMay 27, 1968

Docket16945

StatusPublished

This text of 394 F.2d 987 (John E. Stevens v. The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, a Foreign Corporation, and Third-Party v. Lucerne Coke Company, a Corporation, Shenango Furnace Company, a Corporation, and Shenango, Inc., a Corporation) 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

John E. Stevens v. The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, a Foreign Corporation, and Third-Party v. Lucerne Coke Company, a Corporation, Shenango Furnace Company, a Corporation, and Shenango, Inc., a Corporation, 394 F.2d 987, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 6768 (3d Cir. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

394 F.2d 987

John E. STEVENS
v.
The BALTIMORE AND OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY, a Foreign
Corporation, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, v. LUCERNE
COKE COMPANY, a Corporation, Shenango Furnace Company, a
Corporation, and Shenango, Inc., a Corporation, Appellants.

No. 16945.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued May 9, 1968.
Decided May 27, 1968.

Henry R. Rea, Jr., Brandt, Riester, Brandt & Malone, Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellants.

John J. Repcheck, Mercer & Buckley, Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellee.

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff, Stevens, settled his claim against the defendant, The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, for $14,000. Thereafter the claim by The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company as third party plaintiff against the third party defendants was tried by a judge without a jury and he entered an order holding the third party defendants liable to the railroad in the amount of the settlement by virtue of an indemnity agreement which had been entered into between them. The third party defendants appeal from the judgment against them.

What is involved is the interpretation of the indemnity agreement and whether it applies to the use of the railroad sidetrack as well as the unloading facility itself.

We have given careful consideration to the arguments of both sides and to the agreement itself and are satisfied that the interpretation made by the district court was proper.

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

394 F.2d 987

John E. STEVENS
v.
The BALTIMORE AND OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY, a Foreign
Corporation, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, v. LUCERNE
COKE COMPANY, a Corporation, Shenango Furnace Company, a
Corporation, and Shenango, Inc., a Corporation, Appellants.

No. 16945.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued May 9, 1968.
Decided May 27, 1968.

Henry R. Rea, Jr., Brandt, Riester, Brandt & Malone, Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellants.

John J. Repcheck, Mercer & Buckley, Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellee.

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff, Stevens, settled his claim against the defendant, The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, for $14,000. Thereafter the claim by The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company as third party plaintiff against the third party defendants was tried by a judge without a jury and he entered an order holding the third party defendants liable to the railroad in the amount of the settlement by virtue of an indemnity agreement which had been entered into between them. The third party defendants appeal from the judgment against them.

What is involved is the interpretation of the indemnity agreement and whether it applies to the use of the railroad sidetrack as well as the unloading facility itself.

We have given careful consideration to the arguments of both sides and to the agreement itself and are satisfied that the interpretation made by the district court was proper.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

394 F.2d 987, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 6768, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-e-stevens-v-the-baltimore-and-ohio-railroad-company-a-foreign-ca3-1968.