Robert Carey and Linda Carey, Minors, by Their Parents and Natural Guardians, Merle G. Carey and Helen J. Carey, and Merle G. Carey in His Own Right v. Benjamin Danecki v. Merle G. Carey

Third Circuit

Robert Carey and Linda Carey, Minors, by Their Parents and Natural Guardians, Merle G. Carey and Helen J. Carey, and Merle G. Carey in His Own Right v. Benjamin Danecki v. Merle G. Carey

289 F.2d 314, 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 4713

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedApril 25, 1961

Docket13426

StatusPublished

This text of 289 F.2d 314 (Robert Carey and Linda Carey, Minors, by Their Parents and Natural Guardians, Merle G. Carey and Helen J. Carey, and Merle G. Carey in His Own Right v. Benjamin Danecki v. Merle G. Carey) 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

Robert Carey and Linda Carey, Minors, by Their Parents and Natural Guardians, Merle G. Carey and Helen J. Carey, and Merle G. Carey in His Own Right v. Benjamin Danecki v. Merle G. Carey, 289 F.2d 314, 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 4713 (3d Cir. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

289 F.2d 314

Robert CAREY and Linda Carey, minors, by their parents and natural guardians, Merle G. Carey and Helen J. Carey, and Merle G. Carey in his own right,
v.
Benjamin DANECKI, Appellant,
v.
Merle G. CAREY.

No. 13426.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued February 24, 1961.

Decided April 25, 1961.

James A. McGregor, Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellant.

No oral argument for appellee.

Robert E. Wayman, Dickie, McCamey, Chilcote & Robinson, Pittsburgh, Pa., for third-party defendant.

Before KALODNER, STALEY and FORMAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In this diversity action for damages arising out of an automobile collision, the defendant and third-party plaintiff, Benjamin Danecki, joined the plaintiff, Merle G. Carey as a third-party defendant. Carey subsequently filed an amended answer in which he pleaded as a bar to Danecki's third-party action against him, a release executed prior to the institution of the instant suit. The District Court granted Carey's motion for judgment on the pleadings and this appeal followed.

The record discloses that the District Court did not, in accordance with Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. make an express determination that there was no just reason for delay.

Under the circumstances the appeal must be dismissed as being from an interlocutory order and it is so ordered.

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