Daffinrud v. United States
| Decision Date | 07 December 1944 |
| Docket Number | No. 8534.,8534. |
| Parties | DAFFINRUD v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Quincy H. Hale and Thomas H. Skemp, both of La Crosse, Wis., for appellant.
Francis M. Shea, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lester P. Schoene and Wilbur C. Pickett, Bureau of War Risk Litigation, both of Washington, D. C., Francis A. Murphy, of Madison, Wis., Wm. M. Lytle, of Chicago, Ill., John J. Boyle, U. S. Atty., of Madison, Wis., and Keith L. Seegmiller, Atty., Department of Justice, of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before SPARKS, KERNER, and MINTON, Circuit Judges.
The plaintiff appeals from a judgment on a verdict in favor of the United States in a suit on a policy of war risk insurance. The only point relied upon as error is the action of the court in denying his motion for a new trial, which, appellant contends, constituted an abuse of discretion which should be corrected by this court.
Plaintiff is the guardian of the insured who was adjudicated incompetent and committed in July, 1921, suffering from dementia præcox, hebephrenic type. He had been discharged from military service in June, 1919, and his policy of insurance lapsed for nonpayment of premiums July 31, 1919. Appellant introduced evidence tending to show that his ward had become insane even prior to his discharge from the service, and that, from the date of his discharge, he had been incapacitated from performing any of the activities relating to his prewar occupation, farming, except under the closest supervision, and even then, he could not be relied upon. However, this evidence was disputed by the Government which, in turn, introduced evidence tending to show that the insured was not totally incapacitated from performing any work prior to the lapse of his policy. Under this state of the proceedings, with no objections on the part of the plaintiff to the admission or exclusion of evidence, and no motion on his part for a directed verdict, the case went to the jury which rendered a verdict in favor of the United States. Thereupon, appellant moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and also for a new trial on the grounds that the verdict was contrary to the law and the evidence, and that such new trial was required in the interests of justice.
Substantially the same question as is here raised was presented in the case, Ætna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Yeatts, 4 Cir., 122 F.2d 350, 352. There also the plaintiff appealed from a judgment entered after denial of its motion for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rice v. Union Pacific R. Co.
...v. Radzevich, 78 U.S.App.D.C. 235, 139 F.2d 374; Pruitt v. Hardware Dealers Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 5 Cir., 112 F.2d 140; Daffinrud v. United States, 7 Cir., 145 F.2d 724. Moreover, the trial judge in ruling upon a motion for a new trial on the ground that a verdict is contrary to the weight of......
-
Williams v. Nichols, 7785.
...abuse of discretion or in the most exceptional circumstances. Turner v. United States, 6 Cir., 1956, 229 F.2d 944; Daffinrud v. United States, 7 Cir., 1944, 145 F.2d 724; Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Yeatts, 4 Cir., 1941, 122 F.2d 350; General American Life Ins. Co. v. Central Nat. Bank of Clev......
-
Turner v. United States
...a miscarriage of justice even though there may be substantial evidence which would prevent the direction of a verdict. Daffinrud v. United States, 7 Cir., 145 F.2d 724; Grayson v. Deal, D.C., 85 F.Supp. 431; Rothwell v. Pennsylvania R. Co., D.C., 87 F.Supp. The proof offered was sketchy. By......