Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Skyline Sash, Inc., a Corporation of Pennsylvania, and a Citizen of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Plaintiff, v. Fidelity and Casualty Company of New York, a Citizen of the State of New York, Defendant and Third-party Plaintiff, v. T. K. Jacob, Third-party Defendant and Third-party Plaintiff, Appellant, v. Groomes Corporation, Third-party Defendant
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit. - 378 F.2d 369
Argued April 17, 1967 Decided April 24, 1967 Rehearing Denied May 17, 1967
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania; Joseph P. Willson, Judge, 267 F.Supp. 577.
T. K. Jacob, pro se (Robert E. Fulton, Jr., Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief), for appellant.
George F. Taylor, Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellee Skyline Sash, Inc.
Robert F. McCabe, Jr., Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellee Fidelity and Casualty Co.
John G. Kish, Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellee, Groomers Corp.
Before SMITH and FREEDMAN, Circuit Judges, and WORTENDYKE, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
The district court dismissed with prejudice the plaintiff's action against the defendant in accordance with the settlement agreement of the parties. It dismissed without prejudice the third party actions as a result of which any claims which the third parties have inter sese may still be submitted for judicial determination. Indeed we were informed at bar that new actions were thereafter instituted to maintain these claims and are now pending.
Our review of the record leaves no doubt that appellant agreed to the settlement of the plaintiff's claims. It is equally clear that whatever claim he may have as between himself and the other parties to the third party action were reserved to him by the dismissal of the third party actions without prejudice.
In these circumstances, therefore, the judgment of the court below will be affirmed.