Opinion
No. 9023.
Argued January 24, 1946.
Decided March 18, 1946.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Pennsylvania; Frederic P. Schoonmaker, Judge.
Qui tam action by the United States of America, on the relation of Morris L. Marcus, and by Morris L. Marcus in his own behalf, against William F. Hess and others, wherein a judgment was recovered against all defendants except defendant Robert C. Carmack. From an order, 60 F. Supp. 333, denying the petition of defendants Herbert D. Dale and others for an order requiring the clerk of court to mark the judgment satisfied as to petitioners, petitioners appeal.
Affirmed.
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.
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, non-contributing 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.