Case Name: Eva Marie PATTON, Administratrix of the Estate of John B. Patton, Deceased, and Eva Marie Patton, Trustee ad litem for Joan L. Patton, Charles J. Patton, Paul A. Patton, Alfred J. Patton and Mary E. Patton, minors, and for Eva Marie Patton, widow v. BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant, and Duquesne Slag Products Company
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1954-06-30
Citations: 214 F.2d 129
Docket Number: Nos. 11289, 11290, 11307-11309
Parties: Eva Marie PATTON, Administratrix of the Estate of John B. Patton, Deceased, and Eva Marie Patton, Trustee ad litem for Joan L. Patton, Charles J. Patton, Paul A. Patton, Alfred J. Patton and Mary E. Patton, minors, and for Eva Marie Patton, widow v. BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant, and Duquesne Slag Products Company.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 214
Pages: 129–129

Head Matter:
Eva Marie PATTON, Administratrix of the Estate of John B. Patton, Deceased, and Eva Marie Patton, Trustee ad litem for Joan L. Patton, Charles J. Patton, Paul A. Patton, Alfred J. Patton and Mary E. Patton, minors, and for Eva Marie Patton, widow v. BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant, and Duquesne Slag Products Company.
Nos. 11289, 11290, 11307-11309.
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
Argued June 7, 1954.
Decided June 30, 1954.
Marvin D. Power, Pittsburgh, Pa. (E. H. Burgess, John L. Rogers, Jr., Baltimore, Md., Margiotti & Casey, Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief), for appellant Baltimore & O. R. Co.
Thomas Raeburn White, Jr., Philadelphia, Pa. (Thomas Raeburn White, White, Williams & Scott, Philadelphia, Pa., Prichard, Lawler, Malone & Geltz, Pittsburgh Pa., on the brief), for Du-quesne.
James P. McArdle, Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiff Eva M. Patton.
Before BIGGS, Chief Judge, and GOODRICH and McLAUGHLIN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This is the second appeal in this case. Our earlier opinion is reported 3 Cir., 197 F.2d at page 732. That opinion sets out at length the nature of the problems presented. No useful purpose would be served here by a further statement of the facts. Upon remand a new trial was granted and a judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant, B. & O., and a judgment was rendered in favor of Duquesne, the third-party defendant, and against B. & O., D. C., 120 F.Supp. 659. No substantial new problem is presented by the second trial. A careful examination of the record and consideration of the briefs and of the oral argument of the parties convince us that the court below committed no reversible error. Accordingly, the judgments will be affirmed.