United States ex rel. Empire Carpet Corp. v. Appalachian Flooring Co.

36 F.R.D. 452, 1964 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9871
CourtDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts
DecidedNovember 4, 1964
DocketCiv. A. No. 63-998
StatusPublished

This text of 36 F.R.D. 452 (United States ex rel. Empire Carpet Corp. v. Appalachian Flooring Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Massachusetts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States ex rel. Empire Carpet Corp. v. Appalachian Flooring Co., 36 F.R.D. 452, 1964 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9871 (D. Mass. 1964).

Opinion

SWEENEY, Chief Judge.

This is an action on a payment bond executed by the defendants Duncan Contracting Co., Inc. and Continental Casualty Company in conformance with the Miller Act, 40 U.S.C. § 270a et seq., brought by a supplier to a subcontractor of Duncan. Meco, Inc., another subcontractor of Duncan under the same contract with the United States, petitioned the court to permit it to intervene, which petition was denied. Meco, Inc., thereupon, orally moved the court for rehearing, which motion is allowed.

[453]*453The original parties to the action object to the intervention on the grounds that 1) since Meco, Inc. is in receivership, the receiver, not the corporation is the proper party and 2) that this claim has no relation to the original complaint and should, therefore, be asserted in a separate action.

Neither objection is well taken. Under the law of Massachusetts, the receiver must, in general, bring suits in the name of the corporation to recover debts due the corporation which arose prior to his appointment. Rochester Tumbler Works v. Mitchell-Woodbury Co., 215 Mass. 194, 102 N.E. 438 (1913); Wilson v. Welch, 157 Mass. 77, 31 N.E. 712 (1892). And Rule 24(b), F.R.Civ.P., 28 U.S.C., permits intervention “ * * * when an applicant’s claim or defense and the main action have a question of law or fact in common.” Both of these claims are against the same bond. That has been held sufficient to permit intervention. U. S. for the use of Albert Pipe Supply Co. v. Harris-Harmon Well Co., 7 F.R.Serv. 24b.2, Case 6 (D.C.N.Y. 1943).

The motion to intervene is accordingly allowed.

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

Related

Wilson v. Welch
31 N.E. 712 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1892)
Rochester Tumbler Works v. Mitchell Woodbury Co.
215 Mass. 194 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1913)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
36 F.R.D. 452, 1964 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9871, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-ex-rel-empire-carpet-corp-v-appalachian-flooring-co-mad-1964.