Bernard v. Wassel & Sevy Wassel, His Wife v. Edward M. Eglowsky, Stephen H. Stillerman v. Arnold Goldman, & Cent. Trust Co., 542 F.2d 1235 (4th Cir. 1976).
Search
Bernard v. Wassel & Sevy Wassel, His Wife v. Edward M. Eglowsky, Stephen H. Stillerman v. Arnold Goldman, & Cent. Trust Co., 542 F.2d 1235 (4th Cir. 1976). Book View Copy Cite
✓ Positive Treatment Adopted 1 positive ▼
Bernard
v.
WASSEL and Sevy Wassel, His Wife, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Edward M. EGLOWSKY, Stephen H. Stillerman, Appellants, v. Arnold GOLDMAN, and Central Trust Company, Defendants-Appellees
75-2123.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Oct 19, 1976.
542 F.2d 1235
Edward M. Eglowsky (Stephen H. Stiller-man, on brief), pro se., Francis S. Brocato, Baltimore, Md., for appellees Bernard V. and Sevy Wassel., Robert B. Haldeman, Baltimore, Md. (Cleaveland D. Miller, Semmes, Bowen & Semmes, Baltimore, Md., on brief), for appellee Central Trust Co., Arnold Goldman, pro se.
Winter, Craven, Field.
Cited by 31 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

In an exhaustive opinion, the district judge granted judgment to plaintiffs Bernard V. Wassel and Sevy Wassel against defendants Edward M. Eglowsky and Stephen H. Stillerman, and he gave Eglowsky and Stillerman judgment for contribution against Arnold Goldman, a third-party defendant, exonerating Central Trust Company, another third-party defendant. Wassel v. Eglowsky, 399 F.Supp. 1330 (D.Md.1975). Plaintiffs’ recovery was grounded upon defendants’ violation of § 12(1) of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. § 777(1) (selling unregistered securities).

Defendants Eglowsky and Stiller-man appeal, assigning numerous grounds for reversal. We find none of them meritorious, and we affirm on the opinion of the district court, adopting it as our own with regard to the violation of § 12(1) of the Act and defendants’ right to contribution from Goldman.

AFFIRMED.