did not get into the said "Drum Stick" in the plant of the third-party plaintiff or through the said third-party plaintiff's agency in any manner, but was imbedded in said nuts when received from said third-party defendants in such a way as not to be discoverable through the use of reasonable care.
Continuing, the third-party complaint in paragraph 5 alleges that "if the plaintiff was injured as alleged in the original complaint, said injury was caused by third-party defendants' breach of warranty in selling the said third-party plaintiff nuts which were not pure and fit for human consumption and which contained the foreign substance in question. If said third-party plaintiff is liable to the plaintiff, the said third-party defendants are liable to the said third-party plaintiff in an identical sum."
The prayer is for judgment against the third-party defendants for all sums, including interest and costs, that may be adjudged against the said third-party plaintiff in favor of the original plaintiff.
The third-party defendants move to dismiss the third-party complaint on the ground that it fails to state a claim against the third-party defendants upon which relief can be granted. They also move to dismiss the original complaint on like ground.
The third-party defendants are not parties to the original complaint. The theory of that complaint was we have pointed out is negligence. It sounds in tort. There is no doubt, had the plaintiff so desired, she could have joined the third-party defendants along with the defendants, Goldstein and Southern Dairies. Federal Rule 20(a); Crim v. Lumbermens Mut. Casualty Co., D.C., 26 F.Supp. 715. Of course, the original plaintiff has no claim for the breach of an implied warranty against any one but the defendant, Goldstein, who sold her the "Drum Stick." There is no privity of contract between her and the Southern Dairies, Inc., and the third-party defendants. Cushing v. Rodman, 65 App.D.C. 258, 82 F.2d 864, 104 A.L.R. 1023; Hanback v. Dutch Baker Boy, Inc., App.D.C., 107 F.2d 203.
 The motion to dismiss the original complaint must be overruled.
 The third-party complaint clearly states a claim entitling the third-party plaintiff to relief against the third-party defendants, and to recover consequential damages flowing from a breach of the implied warranty. Cushing v. Rodman, supra. Therefore, the motion to dismiss the third-party complaint must be overruled.
It is so ordered.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.