FEDERAL PROCEDURE-IMPLEADER UNDER RULE I4-LACK OF DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP BETWEEN ORIGINAL PLAINTIFF AND THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT

Plaintiff, a citizen of Connecticut sued defendant, a citizen of Ohio, for injuries received when the car in which plaintiff was a passenger collided with a truck driven by defendant. Defendant removed the case from a Connecticut state court to a federal district court and then obtained an order citing plaintiff\u27s husband, a citizen of Connecticut and the driver of the car in which plaintiff was riding, as a third-party defendant under Rule 14 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant had no claim against the third party by Connecticut substantive law which does not recognize contribution between tort-feasors. Plaintiff then amended to include a claim against the third-party defendant. The motion of the third-party defendant to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction was denied. A jury verdict was found against the defendant upon which judgment was entered and they appealed. Held, the judgment against the third-party defendant reversed for lack of jurisdiction. A third party may not be impleaded as defendant when he is liable to the plaintiff alone and both are citizens of the same state, federal jurisdiction not otherwise appearing. Friend v. Middle Atlantic Transp. Co., (C.C.A. 2d, 1946) 153 F. (2d) 778

Real Estate Equity Investments and the Institutional Lender: Nothing Ventured, Nothing Gained

We consider a setup in which the channel from Alice to Bob is less noisy than the channel from Eve to Bob. We show that there exist encoding and decoding which accomplish error correction and authentication simultaneously; that is, Bob is able to correctly decode a message coming from Alice and reject a message coming from Eve with high probability. The system does not require any secret key shared between Alice and Bob, provides information theoretic security, and can safely be composed with other protocols in an arbitrary context