Gaffney v. United States

Third Circuit

Gaffney v. United States

89 F.2d 996, 1937 U.S. App. LEXIS 3655

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMay 6, 1937

DocketNo. 6073

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 89 F.2d 996 (Gaffney v. United States) 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

Gaffney v. United States, 89 F.2d 996, 1937 U.S. App. LEXIS 3655 (3d Cir. 1937).

Pincite

Opinions

BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge:

In this case of war risk insurance the court granted a compulsory nonsuit and on its refusal to take off the same, the plaintiff on the same day excepted, his exception was noted and sealed by the trial judge. The court having thereafter entered judgment, plaintiff filed his assignment of error, alleging the court erred in entering a nonsuit and refusing to take it off, whereupon his appeal was allowed by the trial judge. Thereupon the appeal was docketed in this court and a citation duly issued. All these steps were taken during the current term. Subsequent to the term the trial judge ordered the testimony “filed and to become a part of the record,” and because this order was not made during the term, the government moves to dismiss the appeal.

In view of the fact that exception was taken and bill sealed by the judge, assignments filed and appeal allowed during the term, the certificate and return of the testimony was rather a clerical than a judicial matter. The motion to dismiss is, therefore, denied.

After a careful study of the proofs, we have reached the conclusion the case was one for a jury to pass upon, and the judgment must be reversed. As it goes back for retrial, we refrain from discussing the evidence.

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

BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge:

In this case of war risk insurance the court granted a compulsory nonsuit and on its refusal to take off the same, the plaintiff on the same day excepted, his exception was noted and sealed by the trial judge. The court having thereafter entered judgment, plaintiff filed his assignment of error, alleging the court erred in entering a nonsuit and refusing to take it off, whereupon his appeal was allowed by the trial judge. Thereupon the appeal was docketed in this court and a citation duly issued. All these steps were taken during the current term. Subsequent to the term the trial judge ordered the testimony “filed and to become a part of the record,” and because this order was not made during the term, the government moves to dismiss the appeal.

In view of the fact that exception was taken and bill sealed by the judge, assignments filed and appeal allowed during the term, the certificate and return of the testimony was rather a clerical than a judicial matter. The motion to dismiss is, therefore, denied.

After a careful study of the proofs, we have reached the conclusion the case was one for a jury to pass upon, and the judgment must be reversed. As it goes back for retrial, we refrain from discussing the evidence.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 F.2d 996, 1937 U.S. App. LEXIS 3655, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gaffney-v-united-states-ca3-1937.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack