Case Name: St. Elmo FERRARA, Trustee of an Express Trust, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PHILADELPHIA LABORATORIES, INC., Proctor Hospital, Dr. Edward R. Bove, Dr. William A. O'Rourke, Jr., and Dr. Henry J. Fregosi, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1968-05-06
Citations: 393 F.2d 934
Docket Number: Nos. 369, 370, Dockets 31893, 31894
Parties: St. Elmo FERRARA, Trustee of an Express Trust, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PHILADELPHIA LABORATORIES, INC., Proctor Hospital, Dr. Edward R. Bove, Dr. William A. O’Rourke, Jr., and Dr. Henry J. Fregosi, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 393
Pages: 934–934

Head Matter:
St. Elmo FERRARA, Trustee of an Express Trust, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PHILADELPHIA LABORATORIES, INC., Proctor Hospital, Dr. Edward R. Bove, Dr. William A. O’Rourke, Jr., and Dr. Henry J. Fregosi, Defendants-Appellees.
Nos. 369, 370, Dockets 31893, 31894.
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.
Argued April 5, 1968.
Decided May 6, 1968.
Robert A. Bloomer, Rutland, Vt. (Bloomer & Bloomer, Rutland, Vt.), for plaintiff-appellant.
Frederic W. Allen, Burlington, Vt. (Wick, Dinse & Allen, Burlington, Vt.), for Philadelphia Laboratories, Inc.
Black & Plante, White River Junction, Vt., for Hospital.
Webber & Costello, Rutland, Vt., for Dr. Edward R. Bove.
Davis, Martin & Free, Barre, Vt., for Dr. William A. O’Rourke, Jr.
Coffrin & Pierson, Burlington, Vt., for Dr. Henry J. Fregosi.
Before MOORE, WOODBURY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Complaint dismissed by the United States District Court for the District of Vermont, Leddy, J., on the ground that the court was without jurisdiction under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1359.
Of the First Circuit, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
District Judge Leddy held that St. Elmo Ferrara had been "improperly and collusively" made a party to invoke the jurisdiction of the court. He therefore dismissed the complaint on the ground that the court was without jurisdiction under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1359.
We affirm on his opinion reported at 272 F.Supp. 1000.