Bridges v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Bridges v. United States

67 F.2d 320, 1933 U.S. App. LEXIS 4454

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedNovember 3, 1933

DocketNo. 6933

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 67 F.2d 320 (Bridges v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bridges v. United States, 67 F.2d 320, 1933 U.S. App. LEXIS 4454 (5th Cir. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

FOSTER, Circuit Judge.

This is a suit brought to recover on a policy of war risk insurance. At the close of the evidence a verdict was directed for the United States. This appeal followed. Error is assigned to that ruling.

It appears that Bridges, appellant, was discharged from the Army April 5, 1919. After returning home he secured employment in Jeffersonville, Ga., as a sawyer in a sawmill. He lost an arm through an accident in the sawmill May 1, 1919. The premiums on the policy had been paid through April and the grace period carried the policy in force through the month of May, 1919. No other premiums were paid. After recovering from his accident, he secured employment in other sawmills and at one time acted as a salesman selling toilet articles, in doing which he drove an automobile. He was given vocational training to fit him for raising ehiekens but did not follow that occupation. Suit was not brought until about twelve years after the policy had lapsed.

The burden was on appellant to show with reasonable certainty that he was totally and permanently disabled before the policy lapsed. It was not sufficient to show that he was permanently partially disabled or temporarily totally disabled. U. S. v. Howard (C. C. A.) 64 F.(2d) 533. It was not error to direct a verdict against him. Other errors assigned require no discussion.

The record presents no reversible error.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

FOSTER, Circuit Judge.

This is a suit brought to recover on a policy of war risk insurance. At the close of the evidence a verdict was directed for the United States. This appeal followed. Error is assigned to that ruling.

It appears that Bridges, appellant, was discharged from the Army April 5, 1919. After returning home he secured employment in Jeffersonville, Ga., as a sawyer in a sawmill. He lost an arm through an accident in the sawmill May 1, 1919. The premiums on the policy had been paid through April and the grace period carried the policy in force through the month of May, 1919. No other premiums were paid. After recovering from his accident, he secured employment in other sawmills and at one time acted as a salesman selling toilet articles, in doing which he drove an automobile. He was given vocational training to fit him for raising ehiekens but did not follow that occupation. Suit was not brought until about twelve years after the policy had lapsed.

The burden was on appellant to show with reasonable certainty that he was totally and permanently disabled before the policy lapsed. It was not sufficient to show that he was permanently partially disabled or temporarily totally disabled. U. S. v. Howard (C. C. A.) 64 F.(2d) 533. It was not error to direct a verdict against him. Other errors assigned require no discussion.

The record presents no reversible error.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 F.2d 320, 1933 U.S. App. LEXIS 4454, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bridges-v-united-states-ca5-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack