Kenneth v. United States

W.D. Louisiana

Kenneth v. United States

51 F.2d 122, 1931 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1462

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Louisiana

DecidedJanuary 9, 1931

DocketNo. 1798

StatusPublished

This text of 51 F.2d 122 (Kenneth v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kenneth v. United States, 51 F.2d 122, 1931 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1462 (W.D. La. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

DAWKINS, District Judge.

This is a suit upon a claim of war risk insurance. In paragraph 7 of the petition plaintiff alleges that “On-, 19 — ,” he made application to the Veterans’ Bureau for the payment of insurance, which was refused, but he does not recite as to when the disagreement arose. Defendant has asked for oyer of the communications by which the application was made and the claim denied.

These documents are not the foundation of petitioner’s claim within the meaning of the state Code of Practice, and hence oyer is not the proper remedy. However, sufficient is disclosed by the pleadings to justify the court in requiring the plaintiff to set out specifically the date of the application as well as that of the disagreement with the Bureau. This is necessary to show whether or not the claim has been barred by limitations.

It is therefore ordered that the petitioner amend his pleading to show these dates, and, if this be not done within fifteen days from notice of this order, the suit will be dismissed.

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

DAWKINS, District Judge.

This is a suit upon a claim of war risk insurance. In paragraph 7 of the petition plaintiff alleges that “On-, 19 — ,” he made application to the Veterans’ Bureau for the payment of insurance, which was refused, but he does not recite as to when the disagreement arose. Defendant has asked for oyer of the communications by which the application was made and the claim denied.

These documents are not the foundation of petitioner’s claim within the meaning of the state Code of Practice, and hence oyer is not the proper remedy. However, sufficient is disclosed by the pleadings to justify the court in requiring the plaintiff to set out specifically the date of the application as well as that of the disagreement with the Bureau. This is necessary to show whether or not the claim has been barred by limitations.

It is therefore ordered that the petitioner amend his pleading to show these dates, and, if this be not done within fifteen days from notice of this order, the suit will be dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 F.2d 122, 1931 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1462, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kenneth-v-united-states-lawd-1931.