Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Phoenix Insurance Company, Plaintiff-Respondent v. Guy B. Iacona, Etc., and Ralph Grasso, 298 F.2d 638, 3rd Cir. (1962)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    10 views1 page
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the district court's decision not to charge the plaintiff-respondent insurance company interest on the amount owed on a payment bond from the date the suit was filed until the money was paid into court. The appellate court found that despite arguments from the defendant-appellant, the district judge did not abuse his discretion in deciding not to charge interest for that period given the facts of the case. The judgment of the district court was affirmed.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1962-01-24 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 298 F.2d 638 Docket: 13674

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the district court's decision not to charge the plaintiff-respondent insurance company interest on the amount owed on a payment bond from the date the suit was filed until the money was paid into court. The appellate court found that despite arguments from the defendant-appellant, the district judge did not abuse his discretion in deciding not to charge interest for that period given the facts of the case. The judgment of the district court was affirmed.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    10 views1 page

    Phoenix Insurance Company, Plaintiff-Respondent v. Guy B. Iacona, Etc., and Ralph Grasso, 298 F.2d 638, 3rd Cir. (1962)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the district court's decision not to charge the plaintiff-respondent insurance company interest on the amount owed on a payment bond from the date the suit was filed until the money was paid into court. The appellate court found that despite arguments from the defendant-appellant, the district judge did not abuse his discretion in deciding not to charge interest for that period given the facts of the case. The judgment of the district court was affirmed.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 1

    298 F.

    2d 638

    PHOENIX INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Respondent,


    v.
    Guy B. IACONA, etc., et al., Defendants, and Ralph Grasso,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13674.

    United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.


    Argued Dec. 21, 1961.
    Decided Jan. 24, 1962.

    John J. Corcoran, Jr., Jersey City, N.J. (Ralph Grasso, Jersey City, N.J.,
    on the brief), for defendant-appellant.
    Myron Engelman, New York City (Engelman & Hart, New York City,
    Attorneys for Plaintiff-Respondent, Henry H. Abrams, New York City, on
    the brief), for plaintiff-respondent.
    Before McLAUGHLIN, KALODNER and HASTIE, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM.

    The dispositive question on this appeal is whether the district judge abused his
    discretion in refusing to charge appellee with interest on the amount due on its
    payment bond from the date of filing suit until the cash was paid into court.
    Despite the impressive argument on behalf of appellant, under the facts we
    must conclude that the district judge acted within his discretion in deciding as
    he did.

    The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

    You might also like