Maryland Casualty Co. v. Baldwin

Fourth Circuit

Maryland Casualty Co. v. Baldwin

357 F.2d 338

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMarch 7, 1966

DocketNo. 10199

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 357 F.2d 338 (Maryland Casualty Co. v. Baldwin) 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

Maryland Casualty Co. v. Baldwin, 357 F.2d 338 (4th Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This is a declaratory judgment proceeding instituted by Maryland Casualty Company under Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 2201 to determine coverage under a garage liability policy issued by Maryland Casualty to Lawrence Milton Baldwin on April 1, 1963. A car admittedly at one time owned by Mr. Baldwin was involved in a serious accident October 27, 1963. There are no issues of law involved in this case, only factual questions as to the ownership and possession of the vehicle at the time of the accident. The district judge found that Baldwin was the owner of the automobile, that possession had not been transferred under an agreement of sale and that the use at the time of the accident was with the permission of Baldwin. The testimony as to underlying facts and circumstances of the ownership and possession of this automobile was confused and contradictory. Credibility is for the trial court, which sat without a jury. The burden was upon the plaintiff. We cannot say that the determination of the district judge is clearly erroneous.

The decision of the district court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

This is a declaratory judgment proceeding instituted by Maryland Casualty Company under Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 2201 to determine coverage under a garage liability policy issued by Maryland Casualty to Lawrence Milton Baldwin on April 1, 1963. A car admittedly at one time owned by Mr. Baldwin was involved in a serious accident October 27, 1963. There are no issues of law involved in this case, only factual questions as to the ownership and possession of the vehicle at the time of the accident. The district judge found that Baldwin was the owner of the automobile, that possession had not been transferred under an agreement of sale and that the use at the time of the accident was with the permission of Baldwin. The testimony as to underlying facts and circumstances of the ownership and possession of this automobile was confused and contradictory. Credibility is for the trial court, which sat without a jury. The burden was upon the plaintiff. We cannot say that the determination of the district judge is clearly erroneous.

The decision of the district court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

357 F.2d 338, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maryland-casualty-co-v-baldwin-ca4-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack