Thomas M. Angle v. Preston E. Rhoades and Daisy A. Rhoades, Individually, Jointly and Severally, Myrtle Angle v. Preston E. Rhoades and Daisy A. Rhoades, Individually, Jointly and Severally v. Thomas M. Angle, Third Party

277 F.2d 925, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 4582
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit
DecidedMay 12, 1960
Docket13158_1
StatusPublished

This text of 277 F.2d 925 (Thomas M. Angle v. Preston E. Rhoades and Daisy A. Rhoades, Individually, Jointly and Severally, Myrtle Angle v. Preston E. Rhoades and Daisy A. Rhoades, Individually, Jointly and Severally v. Thomas M. Angle, Third Party) 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
Thomas M. Angle v. Preston E. Rhoades and Daisy A. Rhoades, Individually, Jointly and Severally, Myrtle Angle v. Preston E. Rhoades and Daisy A. Rhoades, Individually, Jointly and Severally v. Thomas M. Angle, Third Party, 277 F.2d 925, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 4582 (3d Cir. 1960).

Opinion

277 F.2d 925

Thomas M. ANGLE
v.
Preston E. RHOADES and Daisy A. Rhoades, Individually, Jointly and Severally, Appellants.
Myrtle ANGLE
v.
Preston E. RHOADES and Daisy A. Rhoades, Individually, Jointly and Severally, Appellants
v.
Thomas M. ANGLE, Third Party Defendant.

No. 13157.

No. 13158.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued May 6, 1960.

Decided May 12, 1960.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania; Joseph P. Willson, Judge.

Bernard Quinn, Erie, Pa. (Quinn, Leemhuis, Plate & Dwyer, Erie, Pa., on the brief), for appellants.

John G. Gent, William W. Knox, Erie, Pa. (Curtze & Gent, Erie, Pa., Harry F. Fleming, Detroit, Mich., Knox, Weber, Pearson & McLaughlin, Erie, Pa., on the brief), for appellees.

Before KALODNER, HASTIE and FORMAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Our examination of the record in this case discloses evidence sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict. We find no error in the conduct of the trial or the District Court's instructions to the jury.

The Order of the District Court will be affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
277 F.2d 925, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 4582, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-m-angle-v-preston-e-rhoades-and-daisy-a-rhoades-individually-ca3-1960.