Case Name: Edwin R. MacKETHAN, Receiver of the Norfolk Savings and Loan Corporation, Appellee, v. PEAT, MARWICK, MITCHELL & COMPANY and its Individual Partners, Appellants, Leon C. Hall, Frank F. Warren, A. Page Ware, Jr., Charles H. McCoy, Sr., F. Littleton Powell, United Seaboard Bank/Seaboard National and Mrs. Daniel M. Thornton, as Executors of the Estate of Daniel M. Thornton, Deceased, Defendants; Shirley A. ALEXANDER et al., Appellees, v. PEAT, MARWICK, MITCHELL AND COMPANY and its Individual Partners, Appellants, v. Edwin R. MacKETHAN, Receiver of Norfolk Savings and Loan Corporation, and Norfolk Savings and Loan Corporation, Appellees. Thomas L. Hofheimer, et al., Amicus Curiae
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1977-05-23
Citations: 557 F.2d 395
Docket Number: Nos. 76-1979, 76-1980
Parties: Edwin R. MacKETHAN, Receiver of the Norfolk Savings and Loan Corporation, Appellee, v. PEAT, MARWICK, MITCHELL & COMPANY and its Individual Partners, Appellants, Leon C. Hall, Frank F. Warren, A. Page Ware, Jr., Charles H. McCoy, Sr., F. Littleton Powell, United Seaboard Bank/Seaboard National and Mrs. Daniel M. Thornton, as Executors of the Estate of Daniel M. Thornton, Deceased, Defendants. Shirley A. ALEXANDER et al., Appellees, v. PEAT, MARWICK, MITCHELL AND COMPANY and its Individual Partners, Appellants, v. Edwin R. MacKETHAN, Receiver of Norfolk Savings and Loan Corporation, and Norfolk Savings and Loan Corporation, Appellees. Thomas L. Hofheimer, et al., Amicus Curiae.
Judges: Before MOORE, Senior Circuit Judge, Second Circuit, sitting by designation, and BUTZNER and HALL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 557
Pages: 395–396

Head Matter:
Edwin R. MacKETHAN, Receiver of the Norfolk Savings and Loan Corporation, Appellee, v. PEAT, MARWICK, MITCHELL & COMPANY and its Individual Partners, Appellants, Leon C. Hall, Frank F. Warren, A. Page Ware, Jr., Charles H. McCoy, Sr., F. Littleton Powell, United Seaboard Bank/Seaboard National and Mrs. Daniel M. Thornton, as Executors of the Estate of Daniel M. Thornton, Deceased, Defendants. Shirley A. ALEXANDER et al., Appellees, v. PEAT, MARWICK, MITCHELL AND COMPANY and its Individual Partners, Appellants, v. Edwin R. MacKETHAN, Receiver of Norfolk Savings and Loan Corporation, and Norfolk Savings and Loan Corporation, Appellees. Thomas L. Hofheimer, et al., Amicus Curiae.
Nos. 76-1979, 76-1980.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Argued May 4, 1977.
Decided May 23, 1977.
Rehearing Denied June 27, 1977.
R. Gordon Smith, Richmond, Va. (Robert H. Patterson, Jr., James L. Sanderlin, McGuire, Woods & Battle, Richmond, Va., on brief), for appellants Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co.
Oren R. Lewis, Jr., Arlington, Va. (John E. Fricker, Lewis, Wilson, Cowles, Lewis & Jones, Ltd., Arlington, Va., on brief), J. Vernon Patrick, Jr., Birmingham, Ala. (Barton S. Sacher, Berkowitz, Lefkovits & Patrick, Birmingham, Ala., on brief), for appellees in 76-1979 and 76-1980.
Marshall T. Bohannon, Jr., Norfolk, Va. (Herbert & Bohannon, Norfolk, Va., on brief), and Jordan A. Pugh, III, Norfolk, Va., for appellees in 76-1980.
Alan J. Hofheimer, Norfolk, Va. (Hofheimer, Nusbaum & McPhaul, Norfolk, Va., on brief), for Amicus Curiae.
Before MOORE, Senior Circuit Judge, Second Circuit, sitting by designation, and BUTZNER and HALL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Company appeal the orders of the district court dismissing a third party complaint against Norfolk Savings and Loan Corporation and its receiver and refusing to disqualify counsel for the receiver and depositors. We conclude that the order denying disqualification of counsel is appealable because it is a final order collateral to the main proceeding. Silver Chrysler Plymouth, Inc. v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 496 F.2d 800 (2d Cir. 1974). Contra, Community Broadcasting v. FCC, 546 F.2d 1022 (D.C.Cir. 1976). Although dismissal of a third party complaint is ordinarily not appealable, we will consider the order under the doctrine of pendent jurisdiction. On the merits, the district court committed no error.
Affirmed.