Zubik v. United States

Third Circuit

Zubik v. United States

202 F.2d 599, 1953 A.M.C. 1379, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 3277

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMarch 19, 1953

Docket10449

StatusPublished

This text of 202 F.2d 599 (Zubik v. United States) 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

Zubik v. United States, 202 F.2d 599, 1953 A.M.C. 1379, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 3277 (3d Cir. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This case was decided by this Court on June 7, 1951, 190 F.2d 278. There is now before us a motion by the United States Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania in which he asks “damages and costs” basing his claim for the most part on alleged injuries suffered by the United States from the delay occasioned by the appeal. These include a loss of profits in the sale of the barge which was the subject matter of the litigation, advertising charges, custody charges and finally, certain court costs for the District Court. The facts and the law applicable are not admitted except as to the court costs.

We think that the appropriate procedure to recover the disputed damages and costs, if they are recoverable, is by a suit against the surety on the bond, as was done in Spruks v. United States Fidelity & Guarantee Co., 3 Cir., 1943, 138 F.2d 812.

The motion is dismissed without prejudice to the movant to take the appropriate means to recover the amount claimed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This case was decided by this Court on June 7, 1951, 190 F.2d 278. There is now before us a motion by the United States Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania in which he asks “damages and costs” basing his claim for the most part on alleged injuries suffered by the United States from the delay occasioned by the appeal. These include a loss of profits in the sale of the barge which was the subject matter of the litigation, advertising charges, custody charges and finally, certain court costs for the District Court. The facts and the law applicable are not admitted except as to the court costs.

We think that the appropriate procedure to recover the disputed damages and costs, if they are recoverable, is by a suit against the surety on the bond, as was done in Spruks v. United States Fidelity & Guarantee Co., 3 Cir., 1943, 138 F.2d 812.

The motion is dismissed without prejudice to the movant to take the appropriate means to recover the amount claimed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 F.2d 599, 1953 A.M.C. 1379, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 3277, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zubik-v-united-states-ca3-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack