(a) whether the defendant may have recourse to third parties. At any time after the commencement of the action, a defendant, as a third-party plaintiff, may cause a summons and an action to be served on a person who is not a party to the claim and who is or may be liable to the third party plaintiff for all or part of the claimant`s claim against the third-party plaintiff. The third-party requester does not need to obtain authorization to provide the service if it submits the third party`s complaint no later than 10 days after service of the initial response. Otherwise, the third-party claimant must be admitted upon request and notification to all parties to the dispute. The person on whom the summons and third party action have been served, hereinafter referred to as the third-party defendant, shall assert all defences against the third-party plaintiff`s claim under Rule 12 and all counterclaims against the third-party plaintiff and counterclaims against other third-party defendants under Rule 13. The third party defendant may raise against the plaintiff any objection that the third party plaintiff has against the plaintiff`s claim. The third-party defendant may also assert claims against the plaintiff arising out of the settlement or event that is the subject of the plaintiff`s claim against the third-party plaintiff. The plaintiff may bring any action against the third-party defendant arising out of the transaction or event that is the subject of the plaintiff`s claim against the third-party plaintiff, and the third-party defendant must then assert all defenses under Rule 12 and all counterclaims and follow-ups under Rule 13. Either party may seek the third party`s claim or indemnification or a separate proceeding. A third party defendant may, under this rule, bring an action against any person who is not a party to the action and who is or may be liable to the third party defendant for all or part of the claims brought against the third party defendant in the action. The third party claim, if it falls within the scope of the Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, may be directed in rem against a ship, cargo or other property subject to the Admiralty or to an actual maritime proceeding, in which case in which case the arrest warrant and references to the third party plaintiff or defendant may include, where appropriate, the applicant for the seized property. The deletion of the words “the third-party applicant or other body” from sentence 2 of article 14 (a) and the insertion of the new wording contained therein were not substantive changes, but merely served to clarify matters.
(b) where an applicant may have recourse to a third party. If an action is brought against a plaintiff, the plaintiff may appeal to a third party if this rule allows a defendant to do so. The provisions of Rule 14(a) relating to the accusation of a third party who is or may be liable to the plaintiff have been deleted by the proposed amendment. It has been held that under article 14(a), the plaintiff does not need to amend his or her claim to bring an action against that third party if he or she does not wish to do so. Satink v. Holland Township (D.N.J. 1940) 31 F.Supp. 229, noted (1940) 88 U.Pa.L.Rev. 751; Connelly v. Bender (E.D.Mich. 1941) 36 F.Supp. 368; Whitmire v.
Partin v. Milton (Tennn. Ed. 1941) 5 Fed.Rules Serv. 14A.513, case 2; Crim v. Lumbermen`s Mutual Casualty Co. (D.D.C. 1939) 26 F.Supp. 715; Carbola Chemical Co., Inc. v. Trundle (S.D.N.Y. 1943) 7 Fed.Rules Serv.
14A.224, case 1; Roadway Express, Inc. v. Automobile Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn. v. Providence Washington Ins. Co. (N.D.Ohio 1945) 8 Fed.Rules Serv. 14A.513, case 3. In Delano v. Ives (E.D.Pa.
1941) 40 F.Supp. 672, the court stated: “. The weight of case law is that a defendant cannot compel the plaintiff who sued him to also sue a third party whom he does not wish to sue by offering the third party as an additional defendant directly liable to the plaintiff in a third party claim. It is therefore simply an offer made by a party to the plaintiff and, if the party refuses, the attempt is a futility that takes time. See Satink/Holland Township, op. cit. Malkin v. Arundel Corp. (D.Md. 1941) 36 F.Supp. 948; also Koenigsberger, Suggestions for Changes in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure , (1941) 4 Fed.Rules Serv. 1010.
See, however, Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. (M.D.Ga. 1943) 52 F.Supp. 177. Moreover, in all cases where the applicant could not initially have joined the third party due to jurisdictional limitations such as lack of diversity of citizenship, the majority considers that any attempt by the applicant to amend his or her complaint and bring an action against the accused third party would be unsuccessful. Hoskie v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America v.
Lorrac Real Estate Corp. (E.D.N.Y. 1941) 39 F.Supp. 305; Johnson v. G. J. Sherrard Co. v. New England Telephone & Telegraph Co. (D.Mass.
1941) 5 Fed.Rules Serv. 14a.511, Case 1, 2 F.R.D. 164; Thompson v. Cranston (W.D.N.Y. 1942) 6 Fed.Rules Serv. 14a.511, case 1, 2 F.R.D. 270, aff`d (C.C.A.2d, 1942) 132 F.(2d) 631, den. (1943) 319 U.S. 741; Friend v. Middle Atlantic Transportation Co.
(C.C.A.2d, 1946) 153 F.(2d) 778, cert. (1946) 66 S.Ct. 1370; Herrington v. Jones (E.D.La. 1941) 5 Fed.Rules Serv. 14a.511, fall 2, 2 F.R.D. 108; Banken gegen Employers` Liability Assurance Corp. gegen Central Surety & Ins. Corp.
(W.D.Mo. 1943) 7 Fed.Rules Serv. 14a.11, automne 2; Saunders v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. (S.D.W.Va. 1945) 9 Fed.Rules Serv. 14a.62, automne 2; Hull gegen United States Rubber Co. gegen Johnson Larsen & Co.