Jeub v. B/G Foods, Inc.

United States District Court for the District of Minnesota · 1942 · Civil Procedure

2 F.R.D. 238 (D. Minn. 1942)

Updated July 29, 2026

Civil ProcedureThird-Party PracticeImpleaderRule 14third-party complaintindemnitycontributionprematurity

Facts

Plaintiffs alleged that B/G Foods served them contaminated and unwholesome ham in one of its restaurants, making them sick, and they pleaded Minnesota statutes forbidding the sale of unwholesome or deleterious food. B/G Foods then filed a third-party complaint against Swift and Company, alleging that the ham was canned "Swift Premium Ham," bought in a sealed can the day before service, and that B/G Foods was free from blame or negligence. B/G Foods further alleged that if the ham was unfit for consumption, that condition was caused solely by Swift's negligence and unlawful conduct, and that Swift was liable to indemnify or reimburse B/G Foods for any recovery obtained by plaintiffs. Plaintiffs refused to amend their complaints to assert any claim directly against Swift.

Issue

May a defendant implead a third party under Rule 14 on the theory that the third party may be liable over by way of contribution or indemnity, even though the defendant has not yet paid any judgment or otherwise suffered an actual loss and the plaintiff asserts no claim against the third party?

Rule

Rule 14 permits impleader of a person who is or may be liable to the defendant or the plaintiff for all or part of the plaintiff's claim. Although substantive rights of contribution or indemnity are governed by state law and Rule 14 creates no substantive rights, the rule allows acceleration of the determination of such contingent liability in the same action even if an independent action for money recovery could not yet be maintained; any judgment over may be entered with execution stayed until the defendant pays the plaintiff's judgment.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Milwaukee, Nora Benton sued Lakeside Bistro LLC after she allegedly became ill from a bottled sauce served with dinner. Lakeside denies fault and alleges that the sealed bottle had been supplied the day before by Prairie Crest Foods, and that if the sauce was contaminated, Prairie Crest must reimburse Lakeside for any judgment Nora obtains.

Before any judgment has been entered and before Lakeside has paid Nora anything, may the court permit Lakeside to implead Prairie Crest under Rule 14?

Explanation. Rule 14 is procedural and permits impleader of a person who 'is or may be liable' for all or part of the plaintiff’s claim. Under the majority opinion, the defendant need not wait until it has paid the plaintiff before bringing in a third party whose liability over is contingent. The rule accelerates adjudication of that contingent liability in the same action, even though an independent action for money recovery might still be premature.