Walter Tozar v. Philco Corporation, (Oliver B. Cannon & Son, Inc., Third-Party Defendant)

Third Circuit

Walter Tozar v. Philco Corporation, (Oliver B. Cannon & Son, Inc., Third-Party Defendant)

226 F.2d 959

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedNovember 16, 1955

Docket11633

StatusPublished

This text of 226 F.2d 959 (Walter Tozar v. Philco Corporation, (Oliver B. Cannon & Son, Inc., Third-Party Defendant)) 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

Walter Tozar v. Philco Corporation, (Oliver B. Cannon & Son, Inc., Third-Party Defendant), 226 F.2d 959 (3d Cir. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Walter Tozar brought an action against the Philco Corporation for personal injuries suffered through the alleged negligence of an employee of Phil-co. Philco joined as third party defendant Oliver B. Cannon & Son, Inc. who-were painting contractors doing work on Philco’s premises. Philco settled with Tozar. At this stage of the litigation Philco seeks indemnity against Cannon by virtue of a contract and a release executed by Cannon which, Philco says, constitutes a promise to indemnify. The district court gave judgment against Philco and it appeals.

We think that Judge Lord’s opinion in the district court is an accurate statement of the problem and a satisfactory answer to it. We have nothing more to. add and therefore, affirm the judgment on the opinion of the district judge reported in 130 F.Supp. 554.

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

PER CURIAM.

Walter Tozar brought an action against the Philco Corporation for personal injuries suffered through the alleged negligence of an employee of Phil-co. Philco joined as third party defendant Oliver B. Cannon & Son, Inc. who-were painting contractors doing work on Philco’s premises. Philco settled with Tozar. At this stage of the litigation Philco seeks indemnity against Cannon by virtue of a contract and a release executed by Cannon which, Philco says, constitutes a promise to indemnify. The district court gave judgment against Philco and it appeals.

We think that Judge Lord’s opinion in the district court is an accurate statement of the problem and a satisfactory answer to it. We have nothing more to. add and therefore, affirm the judgment on the opinion of the district judge reported in 130 F.Supp. 554.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 F.2d 959, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walter-tozar-v-philco-corporation-oliver-b-cannon-son-inc-ca3-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack