Phoenix Insurance Company, Plaintiff-Respondent v. Guy B. Iacona, Etc., and Ralph Grasso

Third Circuit

Phoenix Insurance Company, Plaintiff-Respondent v. Guy B. Iacona, Etc., and Ralph Grasso

298 F.2d 638

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·Decided January 24, 1962·No. 13674·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

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

PER CURIAM.

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.

Phoenix Insurance Company, Plaintiff-Respondent v. Guy B. Iacona, Etc., and Ralph Grasso, 298 F.2d 638 (3d Cir. 1962).

Pincite

298 F.2d 638 (Phoenix Insurance Company, Plaintiff-Respondent v. Guy B. Iacona, Etc., and Ralph Grasso) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related