Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Ritter v. Wyoga Gas & Oil Corp.

110 F.2d 524

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1940-03-04
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. The Wyoga Gas & Oil Corporation brought suit in the District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania against the appellants and twenty-four other individuals. Twenty-four of the defendants, including the two appellants, were served. Two of the defendants were nonresidents and were not served. The appellants moved in the District Court to dismiss the complaint upon the ground that the court was without jurisdiction to entertain the suit in the absence of the two nonresident defendants who were alleged to be indispensable parties.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Ritter v. Wyoga Gas & Oil Corp.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
6 opinions
RITTER v. WYOGA GAS OIL CORPORATION,110 F.2d 524(3rd Cir. 1940)
RITTER et al. v. WYOGA GAS OIL CORPORATION.
No. 7248.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
March 4, 1940.
Rehearing Denied April 12, 1940.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Middle District of Pennsylvania; Albert W. Johnson, Judge.

Action by the Wyoga Gas Oil Corporation against Geddes H. Schrack and others to recover damages for losses suffered because of acts of alleged fraud, negligence, and misconduct. Motion of Harry C. Ritter and another to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction was refused,27 F. Supp. 35, and on reargument the original opinion was adhered to,29 F. Supp. 582, whereupon Harry C. Ritter and the other appeal.

Appeal dismissed.
Thomas Wood and Wm. H. Wood, both of Williamsport, Pa., for appellants.

Gresser Walker, of New York City, and Richard Henry Klein, Carl Rice, and Russell S. Machmer, all of Sunbury, Pa., for appellee.
Before BIGGS, MARIS, and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The Wyoga Gas Oil Corporation brought suit in the District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania against the appellants and twenty-four other individuals. Twenty-four of the defendants, including the two appellants, were served. Two of the defendants were nonresidents and were not served. The appellants moved in the District Court to dismiss the complaint upon the ground that the court was without jurisdiction to entertain the suit in the absence of the two nonresident defendants who were alleged to be indispensable parties. The District Court entered an order refusing the motion to dismiss the complaint and granting the defendants leave to file an answer within twenty days. The present appeal is from this order. Our brief recital of the proceedings in the District Court makes it clear that the order appealed from was not a final order but merely interlocutory in its nature. It follows that we are without jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Grand Trunk Western R. Co. v. McHie, 6 Cir.,100 F.2d 86.

The appeal is dismissed.Page 525