Kolton v. United States, 862.
| Decision Date | 27 November 1933 |
| Docket Number | No. 862.,862. |
| Citation | 67 F.2d 741 |
| Parties | KOLTON v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Lowell D. Hunt, of Denver, Colo. (S. R. Owens, of Denver, Colo., on the brief), for appellant.
John G. Reid, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Denver, Colo. (Ralph L. Carr, U. S. Atty., and Richard A. Toomey, Atty., Veterans' Administration, both of Denver, Colo., and Davis G. Arnold and Bayless L. Guffy, Attys., Veterans' Administration, both of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for the United States.
Before LEWIS, PHILLIPS, and McDERMOTT, Circuit Judges.
Appellant brought this action against the United States to recover on a policy of war risk insurance issued to him. Trial by jury was duly waived and the cause tried to the court. Judgment was for the United States.
The court made the following special finding of fact, "That said Harry Kolton, plaintiff herein, was not totally and permanently disabled within the terms of his contract of War Risk Term Insurance involved in this action during the time that said contract of insurance was in force"; and the following conclusion of law, "That inasmuch as the proof fails to show that the contract of War Risk Term Insurance sued upon matured under its total and permanent disability clause while it was in force, that plaintiff is not entitled to recover in this action and the Clerk is directed to enter Judgment in favor of the defendant dismissing plaintiff's complaint at the costs of plaintiff."
There appears in the record what purports to be a request by appellant for certain special findings of fact, and for a declaration of law that appellant is entitled to judgment. The same are not incorporated in the bill of exceptions.
There appears in the bill of exceptions the oral opinion of the court, which in part reads as follows:
Thus it will be seen that the bill of exceptions contains a refusal to make the findings of fact requested by appellant, but does not disclose what findings were requested; and that the only exception taken was a general one.
By his assignments of error appellant charges that the court erred in making its findings...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coggins v. Gregorio
...10 Cir., 67 F.2d 737; Greenway v. United States, 10 Cir., 67 F.2d 738; McLeod v. United States, 10 Cir., 67 F.2d 740; Kolton v. United States, 10 Cir., 67 F.2d 741. 2 Davis v. United States, supra; Greenway v. United States, supra; McLeod v. United States, supra; Kolton v. United States, su......
-
Wall v. United States
...10 Cir., 62 F.2d 827; Davis v. United States, 10 Cir., 67 F.2d 737; Greenway v. United States, 10 Cir., 67 F.2d 738; Kolton v. United States, 10 Cir., 67 F.2d 741; Neugen v. Associated Chautauqua Co., 10 Cir., 70 F. 2d 605; Shira v. New York Life Ins. Co., 10 Cir., 90 F.2d The failure to su......
- McLeod v. United States