Legal Opinion

Invest-Import v. Seaboard Surety Co.

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided October 5, 1955PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SUGARMAN, District Judge.

Frazier-Simplex, Inc., has been brought into this action by an ex parte order of the court pursuant to Fed. Rules Civ.Proc. rule 13(h), 28 U.S.C.A., as an additional party to answer “Plaintiff’s Reply and Counterclaims to Third Party Defendant’s Answers and Counterclaims”.

It now moves to dismiss the counterclaims asserted against it on the ground *500that it was not properly brought in under Rule 13(h).1

F.R.Civ.P. 13(a), (b) and (g) authorize the assertion of counterclaims or cross-claims against opposing parties or co-parties, but not against strangers to the litigation.2

2Cited by5 opinions

  1. Sternaman v. MacloskieDistrict Court, E.D. South Carolina · 1965
  2. United States Agricultural Processors Marketing Service, Inc. v. Quinonez Hermanos, S.A.District Court, S.D. Florida · 1976
  3. H. & A. Selmer, Inc. v. Musical Instrument Exchange, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1957
  4. Federal Land Bank v. Cupples BrotherDistrict Court, E.D. Arkansas · 1987
  5. Innovation Ventures, LLC v. Custom Nutrition Laboratories, LLCDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2020

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API