Weinstock Hermanos and Cia Ltda. v. American Aniline and Extract Company, Inc. v. Grace Line, Inc.(third-Party Defendant)

Third Circuit

Weinstock Hermanos and Cia Ltda. v. American Aniline and Extract Company, Inc. v. Grace Line, Inc.(third-Party Defendant)

406 F.2d 1327, 12 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 157, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 9010, 1969 A.M.C. 1115

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedFebruary 7, 1969

Docket17147_1

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 406 F.2d 1327 (Weinstock Hermanos and Cia Ltda. v. American Aniline and Extract Company, Inc. v. Grace Line, 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

Weinstock Hermanos and Cia Ltda. v. American Aniline and Extract Company, Inc. v. Grace Line, Inc.(third-Party Defendant), 406 F.2d 1327, 12 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 157, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 9010, 1969 A.M.C. 1115 (3d Cir. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

Weinstock Hermanos and Cia. Ltda. (Weinstock), a manufacturer in Colombia, sued American Aniline and Extract Company, Inc. (Aniline) under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act for damages, alleging that Aniline had sold it Ethylene Dimethacrylate which had polymerized and was unfit for use. Aniline impleaded the carrier, Grace Line, Inc. (Grace), as third-party defendant, asserting that it was responsible for the defects in the Ethylene Dimethacrylate. Grace pleaded the one year statute of limitations of the Act, 46 U.S.C. § 1303(6). The court below decided the issue in favor of Grace and dismissed the suit as to it. Aniline has appealed.

The liability of Aniline to Weinstock remains undecided. The court below en *1328 tered no order pursuant to Rule 54(b), Fed.R.Civ.Proc., 28 U.S.C., and the suit involves multiple parties and possibly multiple claims all of which have not been adjudicated. We are without jurisdiction to hear the appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Consequently, it will be dismissed.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

Weinstock Hermanos and Cia. Ltda. (Weinstock), a manufacturer in Colombia, sued American Aniline and Extract Company, Inc. (Aniline) under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act for damages, alleging that Aniline had sold it Ethylene Dimethacrylate which had polymerized and was unfit for use. Aniline impleaded the carrier, Grace Line, Inc. (Grace), as third-party defendant, asserting that it was responsible for the defects in the Ethylene Dimethacrylate. Grace pleaded the one year statute of limitations of the Act, 46 U.S.C. § 1303(6). The court below decided the issue in favor of Grace and dismissed the suit as to it. Aniline has appealed.

The liability of Aniline to Weinstock remains undecided. The court below en *1328 tered no order pursuant to Rule 54(b), Fed.R.Civ.Proc., 28 U.S.C., and the suit involves multiple parties and possibly multiple claims all of which have not been adjudicated. We are without jurisdiction to hear the appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Consequently, it will be dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

406 F.2d 1327, 12 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 157, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 9010, 1969 A.M.C. 1115, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weinstock-hermanos-and-cia-ltda-v-american-aniline-and-extract-company-ca3-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack