Wade Cheesman v. Tidewater Mill & Elevator Co.

Third Circuit

Wade Cheesman v. Tidewater Mill & Elevator Co.

303 F.2d 445, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 5144

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMay 10, 1962

Docket13884_1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 303 F.2d 445 (Wade Cheesman v. Tidewater Mill & Elevator Co.) 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

Wade Cheesman v. Tidewater Mill & Elevator Co., 303 F.2d 445, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 5144 (3d Cir. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final order entered in conformity with Rule 54(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C., granting summary judgment dismissing the action against Tidewater Mill & Elevator Co., one of several persons whom appellant joined as defendants in this personal injury case. The court below rightly concluded that the claim stated against this defendant was based solely upon its alleged ownership of certain real property, and that on motion for summary judgment it was clearly established that this party had not at any time owned the premises in question. Moreover, appellant’s assertion in this court that appellee is estopped to deny ownership of the property fails because appellant has neither pleaded nor asserted in an affidavit that he in fact relied to his detriment upon any representation that appellee owned the premises.

The judgment will be affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final order entered in conformity with Rule 54(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C., granting summary judgment dismissing the action against Tidewater Mill & Elevator Co., one of several persons whom appellant joined as defendants in this personal injury case. The court below rightly concluded that the claim stated against this defendant was based solely upon its alleged ownership of certain real property, and that on motion for summary judgment it was clearly established that this party had not at any time owned the premises in question. Moreover, appellant’s assertion in this court that appellee is estopped to deny ownership of the property fails because appellant has neither pleaded nor asserted in an affidavit that he in fact relied to his detriment upon any representation that appellee owned the premises.

The judgment will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 F.2d 445, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 5144, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wade-cheesman-v-tidewater-mill-elevator-co-ca3-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack