United States ex rel. Marcus v. Hess

Third Circuit

United States ex rel. Marcus v. Hess

154 F.2d 291, 1946 U.S. App. LEXIS 2048

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMarch 18, 1946

DocketNo. 9023

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 154 F.2d 291 (United States ex rel. Marcus v. Hess) 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

United States ex rel. Marcus v. Hess, 154 F.2d 291, 1946 U.S. App. LEXIS 2048 (3d Cir. 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

It is conceded by the appellants that if the federal rule relating to the release of joint tort-feasors be applied, the release of those defendants who contributed to the payment of a portion of the judgment, will not release the appellants, noncontributing defendants. The appellants contend that the Pennsylvania rule is applicable and that the release of one or more of the defendants, joint tort-feasors, will release all. Without conceding that the Pennsylvania rule is as the appellants assert, we entertain no doubt that the federal rule is applicable. The action at bar serves a federal purpose since it is a qui tam action brought pursuant to Sections 3490-3494 and 5438 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, 31 U.S.C.A. §§ 231-235, 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 80, 82-86. See People of Porto Rico v. Rosaly y Castillo, 227 U.S. 270, 276, 33 S.Ct. 352, 57 L.Ed. 507; Garrett v. Moore-McCormack Co., 317 U.S. 239, 245, 63 S.Ct. 246, 87 L.Ed. 239; Brooklyn Savings Bank v. O’Neil, 324 U.S. 697, 715, 65 S.Ct. 895. Accordingly the order of the District Court is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

It is conceded by the appellants that if the federal rule relating to the release of joint tort-feasors be applied, the release of those defendants who contributed to the payment of a portion of the judgment, will not release the appellants, noncontributing defendants. The appellants contend that the Pennsylvania rule is applicable and that the release of one or more of the defendants, joint tort-feasors, will release all. Without conceding that the Pennsylvania rule is as the appellants assert, we entertain no doubt that the federal rule is applicable. The action at bar serves a federal purpose since it is a qui tam action brought pursuant to Sections 3490-3494 and 5438 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, 31 U.S.C.A. §§ 231-235, 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 80, 82-86. See People of Porto Rico v. Rosaly y Castillo, 227 U.S. 270, 276, 33 S.Ct. 352, 57 L.Ed. 507; Garrett v. Moore-McCormack Co., 317 U.S. 239, 245, 63 S.Ct. 246, 87 L.Ed. 239; Brooklyn Savings Bank v. O’Neil, 324 U.S. 697, 715, 65 S.Ct. 895. Accordingly the order of the District Court is affirmed.

Goldlawr, Incorporated v. Jacob J. Shubert, Lawrence Shubert Lawrence, John Shubert, Select Theatres Corporation, Modern Theatre Corporation and Barrymore Theatre Corporation, and L.A.B. Amusement Corporation and William Goldman Theatres, Inc. And William Goldman, Third Party Goldlawr, Incorporated v. Jacob J. Shubert, Lawrence Shubert Lawrence, Select Theatres Corporation, and L.A.B. Amusement Corporation and William Goldman Theatres, Inc. And William Goldman, Third Party

276 F.2d 614 (Third Circuit, 1960)

Goldlawr, Inc. v. Shubert

276 F.2d 614 (Third Circuit, 1960)

Taxin v. Food Fair Stores, Inc.

181 F. Supp. 181 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1960)

Panichella v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company

150 F. Supp. 79 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1957)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

154 F.2d 291, 1946 U.S. App. LEXIS 2048, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-ex-rel-marcus-v-hess-ca3-1946.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack