Walker v. Tilley Lamp Co.

Third Circuit

Walker v. Tilley Lamp Co.

467 F.2d 219

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedJuly 6, 1972

DocketNos. 71-1752, 71-1753

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 467 F.2d 219 (Walker v. Tilley Lamp 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

Walker v. Tilley Lamp Co., 467 F.2d 219 (3d Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

This appeal challenges as an abuse of discretion the refusal of the trial judge to vacate a default entered against a garnishee as a result of its failure for 43 days to answer Interrogatori.es in Attachment despite the requirement of law that answer be filed within twenty days.

Rule 55(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, under which appellant sought relief, authorizes a District Court “[f]or good cause shown . . . [to] set aside an entry of default.” Moreover, as the court below observed in this case, trial of the merits of a claim is preferable to disposition by default. However, on the present record we cannot say that the District Court acted arbitrarily or unfairly in refusing to vacate the default.

The judgment entered pursuant to default will be affirmed.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

This appeal challenges as an abuse of discretion the refusal of the trial judge to vacate a default entered against a garnishee as a result of its failure for 43 days to answer Interrogatori.es in Attachment despite the requirement of law that answer be filed within twenty days.

Rule 55(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, under which appellant sought relief, authorizes a District Court “[f]or good cause shown . . . [to] set aside an entry of default.” Moreover, as the court below observed in this case, trial of the merits of a claim is preferable to disposition by default. However, on the present record we cannot say that the District Court acted arbitrarily or unfairly in refusing to vacate the default.

The judgment entered pursuant to default will be affirmed.

George Farzetta v. Turner & Newall, Ltd., Bell Asbestos Mines, Ltd., Turner Asbestos Fibres, Ltd., Brinco Mining Ltd., Asbestos Corporation, Ltd., Carey Canada, Inc., Johns-Manville Corp. Johns-Manville Amiante Canada, Inc. Managing Agent of Johns-Manville Sales Corp. Huxley Development Corp. Gaf Corporation the Celotex Corporation Inc. v. Certainteed Corp. Certain Teed Corp. Special Materials Inc-Wisconsin Norca Corporation. Appeal of Bell Asbestos Mines, Ltd. Appeal of Asbestos Corporation, Ltd

797 F.2d 151 (Third Circuit, 1986)

Farzetta v. Turner & Newall, Ltd.

797 F.2d 151 (Third Circuit, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

467 F.2d 219, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walker-v-tilley-lamp-co-ca3-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack