Case Name: UNITED STATES ex rel. MARCUS v. HESS et al.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1946-03-18
Citations: 154 F.2d 291
Docket Number: No. 9023
Parties: UNITED STATES ex rel. MARCUS v. HESS et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 154
Pages: 291–291

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES ex rel. MARCUS v. HESS et al.
No. 9023.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Argued Jan. 24, 1946.
Decided March 18, 1946.
Morris Feldstein, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellants.
Marvin D. Power, of Pittsburgh, Pa., (Margiotti & Casey, of Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief), for appellee Marcus.
J. Gregory Bruce, of Washington, D. C., (John F. Sonnett, Asst. Atty. Gen., Department of Justice, and Charles F. Uhl, U. S. Atty., of Pittsburgh, Pa., Joseph M. Friedman, Chief, War Frauds Civil Section, of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellee United States.
Before BIGGS and GOODRICH, Circuit Judges, and KIRKPATRICK, District Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
It is conceded by the appellants that if the federal rule relating to the release of joint tort-feasors be applied, the release of those defendants who contributed to the payment of a portion of the judgment, will not release the appellants, noncontributing defendants. The appellants contend that the Pennsylvania rule is applicable and that the release of one or more of the defendants, joint tort-feasors, will release all. Without conceding that the Pennsylvania rule is as the appellants assert, we entertain no doubt that the federal rule is applicable. The action at bar serves a federal purpose since it is a qui tam action brought pursuant to Sections 3490-3494 and 5438 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, 31 U.S.C.A. § 231-235, 18 U.S.C.A. § 80, 82-86. See People of Porto Rico v. Rosaly y Castillo, 227 U.S. 270, 276, 33 S.Ct. 352, 57 L.Ed. 507; Garrett v. Moore-McCormack Co., 317 U.S. 239, 245, 63 S.Ct. 246, 87 L.Ed. 239; Brooklyn Savings Bank v. O'Neil, 324 U.S. 697, 715, 65 S.Ct. 895. Accordingly the order of the District Court is affirmed.