Burns v. United States

Fourth Circuit

Burns v. United States

200 F.2d 106, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 2242

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedNovember 15, 1952

Docket6479

StatusPublished

Cited by24 cases

This text of 200 F.2d 106 (Burns v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Burns v. United States, 200 F.2d 106, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 2242 (4th Cir. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal in. an inter-pleader suit involving, a policy of National Service Life Insurance- There was-judgment in the court below in favor of the daughter of the -insured ’and"against his widow, who was the beneficiary of' the insurance, on the ground that the latter had been guilty of the intentional killing of the insured and for that reason; was precluded; from recovering under the policy. The.widow, who admittedly' kill *107 •ed the insured, had been charged with murder and had been acquitted in the state court on a plea of self defense. The judge below properly held that the action of the state court in the criminal case was not binding in this case and upon the evidence submitted to him held that the killing was not justified on the theory of self defense but that the widow was guilty of the intentional and felonious slaying of the insured. We think that this was clearly right and that nothing need be added to what was said in the opinion below. See United States v. Burns, 103 F.Supp. 690.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal in. an inter-pleader suit involving, a policy of National Service Life Insurance- There was-judgment in the court below in favor of the daughter of the -insured ’and"against his widow, who was the beneficiary of' the insurance, on the ground that the latter had been guilty of the intentional killing of the insured and for that reason; was precluded; from recovering under the policy. The.widow, who admittedly' kill *107 •ed the insured, had been charged with murder and had been acquitted in the state court on a plea of self defense. The judge below properly held that the action of the state court in the criminal case was not binding in this case and upon the evidence submitted to him held that the killing was not justified on the theory of self defense but that the widow was guilty of the intentional and felonious slaying of the insured. We think that this was clearly right and that nothing need be added to what was said in the opinion below. See United States v. Burns, 103 F.Supp. 690.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 F.2d 106, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 2242, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burns-v-united-states-ca4-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack