Powell v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company

259 F.2d 267
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit
DecidedOctober 1, 1958
Docket12696
StatusPublished

This text of 259 F.2d 267 (Powell v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company) 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
Powell v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 259 F.2d 267 (3d Cir. 1958).

Opinion

259 F.2d 267

Robert POWELL and Elizabeth W. Lawrence, Appellants, United
States of America (Intervening Plaintiff),
v.
The PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY, George M. Harrison,
Individually and as Grand President of the Brotherhood of
Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and
Station Employees; and S. V. M. Loehr, General Chairman,
Individually and as General Chairman of the Pennsylvania
System Board of Adjustment, the Brotherhood of Railway and
Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees.

No. 12696.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued Sept. 15, 1958.
Decided Oct. 1, 1958.

Lawrence J. Richette, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellants.

Allen S. Olmsted, 2d, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellees.

Before GOODRICH, STALEY and HASTIE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is a motion to dismiss an appeal following a refusal by the district court to vacate an order previously made.

So far as the Pennsylvania Railroad is concerned, the original dismissal with prejudice settles the matter. The Railroad complied with the court's order and no timely appeal was teken. The Motion to vacate does not extend the time for appeal. This matter is covered by our decisions in Raughley v. Pennsylvania R.R., 3 Cir., 1956, 230 F.2d 387, and Safe Harbor Waterpower Corp. v. Federal Power Commission, 3 Cir., 1941, 124 F.2d 800.

So far as the amount to be distributed pursuant to a court order is concerned, that is clearly settled by the stipulation made between the parties and recognized in the argument before Judge Kirkpatrick March 27, 1958. If there are other claimants to the fund in addition to those represented by the attorneys in the case before us, they are not involved in this appeal and have no standing in court at the present time.

So far as the claim by the attorneys for additional compensation is concerned, the appeal is timely. They claim an arrangement with the clients whereby they are to receive one-third of the fund. The court has allowed $30,000 which is onetenth of the fund. If this is incorrect they are entitled to have the error corrected.

The motions to dismiss will be granted except so far as the claim by the attorneys except so far as the claim by the attorneys for additional compensation is concerned. The briefs may be typewritten.

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

Related

Burton R. Raughley v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company
230 F.2d 387 (Third Circuit, 1956)
Powell v. Pennsylvania Railroad
259 F.2d 267 (Third Circuit, 1958)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
259 F.2d 267, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/powell-v-pennsylvania-railroad-company-ca3-1958.