Phoenix Insurance Company, Plaintiff-Respondent v. Guy B. Iacona, Etc., and Ralph Grasso
This text of 298 F.2d 638 (Phoenix Insurance Company, Plaintiff-Respondent v. Guy B. Iacona, Etc., and Ralph Grasso) 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.
Opinion
The dispositive question on this appeal is whether the district judge abused his discretion in refusing to charge appellee with interest on the amount due on its payment bond from the date of filing suit until the cash was paid into court. Despite the impressive argument on behalf of appellant, under the facts we must conclude that the district judge acted within his discretion in deciding as he did.
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
298 F.2d 638, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/phoenix-insurance-company-plaintiff-respondent-v-guy-b-iacona-etc-and-ca3-1962.