Flood v. United State

Third Circuit

Flood v. United State

172 F.2d 221, 1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 2677

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedJanuary 10, 1949

DocketNo. 9731

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 172 F.2d 221 (Flood v. United State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Flood v. United State, 172 F.2d 221, 1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 2677 (3d Cir. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

No useful purpose would be served by-writing an extended opinion in the case at bar. It is clear that sufficient competent evidence was introduced from which the jury could find, as they did find, that the deceased soldier had taken positive and af[222]*222firmative steps to change the beneficiary of his insurance policy from his mother to his wife. In fact in the instant case it is unnecessary to go even as far as did the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Mitchell v. United States, 165 F.2d 758, 2 A.L.R.2d 484, affirming Rutledge v. United States, D. C., 72 F.Supp. 352, for in the case at 'bar the soldier wrote to 'his wife that “ * * * the insurance is in your name only.”

Accordingly the judgment of the court below, 78 F.Supp. 420, will be affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

No useful purpose would be served by-writing an extended opinion in the case at bar. It is clear that sufficient competent evidence was introduced from which the jury could find, as they did find, that the deceased soldier had taken positive and af[222]*222firmative steps to change the beneficiary of his insurance policy from his mother to his wife. In fact in the instant case it is unnecessary to go even as far as did the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Mitchell v. United States, 165 F.2d 758, 2 A.L.R.2d 484, affirming Rutledge v. United States, D. C., 72 F.Supp. 352, for in the case at 'bar the soldier wrote to 'his wife that “ * * * the insurance is in your name only.”

Accordingly the judgment of the court below, 78 F.Supp. 420, will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 F.2d 221, 1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 2677, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flood-v-united-state-ca3-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack