Union Paving Co. v. Thomas

Third Circuit

Union Paving Co. v. Thomas

195 F.2d 184

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·Decided February 26, 1952·No. Nos. 10606, 10607·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The primary question presented by the instant appeals is really one of fact— whether the defendants were, under the applicable Pennsylvania decisions, guilty of negligence, either alone or jointly with the plaintiff. Both cases were tried to the Court below without a jury. The District Court found as a fact that the defendants were free of negligence and that the plaintiff alone was guilty of negligence. This finding of fact is challenged here as “clearly erroneous” within the meaning of Rule 52(a), Federal Rules of Cwil Procedure, 28 U.S.C. Our review of the record discloses the finding is fully supported by the evidence.

The judgment of the Court below, in each of these appeals, will be affirmed upon the opinion of Judge Welsh, D.C., 103 F.Supp. 408.

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

PER CURIAM.

The primary question presented by the instant appeals is really one of fact— whether the defendants were, under the applicable Pennsylvania decisions, guilty of negligence, either alone or jointly with the plaintiff. Both cases were tried to the Court below without a jury. The District Court found as a fact that the defendants were free of negligence and that the plaintiff alone was guilty of negligence. This finding of fact is challenged here as “clearly erroneous” within the meaning of Rule 52(a), Federal Rules of Cwil Procedure, 28 U.S.C. Our review of the record discloses the finding is fully supported by the evidence.

The judgment of the Court below, in each of these appeals, will be affirmed upon the opinion of Judge Welsh, D.C., 103 F.Supp. 408.

Union Paving Co. v. Thomas, 195 F.2d 184 (3d Cir. 1952).

Pincite

195 F.2d 184 (Union Paving Co. v. Thomas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related