Morgan v. Hines, 8890.
| Citation | 149 F.2d 21,80 US App. DC 79 |
| Decision Date | 16 April 1945 |
| Docket Number | No. 8890.,8890. |
| Parties | MORGAN v. HINES, Adm'r of Veterans Affairs. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia) |
Mr. Claude L. Dawson, of Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Robert H. McNeill, of Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant.
Mr. David A. Turner, Attorney, Department of Justice, of Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Francis M. Shea, Assistant Attorney General, and Messrs. Wilbur C. Pickett, Acting Director, Bureau of War Risk Litigation, Edward M. Curran, United States Attorney, and Fendall Marbury, Attorney, Department of Justice, all of Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before MILLER, EDGERTON, and ARNOLD, Associate Justices.
Appellant sought in the District Court an order requiring appellee, as Administrator of Veterans Affairs, to perform what she called his ministerial duty to reinstate a policy of insurance. The Court granted appellee's motion to dismiss the complaint. We conclude that the complaint was properly dismissed. The Regulation,1 upon which our decision turns, reads as follows: "The applicant for reinstatement of United States Government life insurance must furnish during his lifetime, and before becoming totally and permanently disabled, a written application signed by him which shall state that he is in as good health as at date of lapse, or that he is in good health, in accordance with the requirements of the particular case; and in addition the applicant shall furnish such evidence relative to his physical condition as may be required by the director on such forms as the director may prescribe: Provided, That if the insurance becomes a claim after tender of the amount of the premiums required but before full compliance with the requirements of this paragraph, and the applicant was in the required state of health at the date that he made the tender of the amount of premiums, and that there is a satisfactory reason for his noncompliance, the director may, if the applicant be dead, waive any or all of the requirements of this paragraph, or if the applicant be living, allow compliance with this paragraph, as of the date the required amount of premiums was received in the bureau." Italics supplied The proviso clearly contemplates the exercise of discretion by the Administrator. Appellant's contention seems to be that the proviso means not that the Administrator may, but that he must waive the requirements. This is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Karas v. United States
...30 A.2d 314. We note in passing, plaintiff's reference to § 10.3424 — there could be no waiver of tender of premium. See Morgan v. Hines, 80 U.S.App.D.C. 79, 149 F.2d 21. The policy was not reinstated. See Rowan v. United States, D.C., 115 F.Supp. 503. In addition to the fact that estoppel ......
-
Jackson v. McCall
...287 U.S. 178, 203-04, 53 S.Ct. 106, 113-14, 77 L.Ed. 248 (1932); Coleman v. Burnett, 477 F.2d 1187, 1202 (D.C.Cir.1973); Morgan v. Hines, 149 F.2d 21, 22 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 326 U.S. 734, 66 S.Ct. 42, 90 L.Ed. 437 (1945). As demonstrated above, the United States Parole Commission may ......
-
Winsor v. Daumit
...Industrial Corp., 2 Cir., 154 F. 2d 814, 817; Audi Vision Inc., v. R. C. A., 2 Cir., 136 F.2d 621, 623, 147 A.L.R. 574; Morgan v. Hines, 80 U.S.App.D.C. 79, 149 F.2d 21. Other instances of similar reasoning are Leonard v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 7 Cir., 130 F.2d 535; Markham v. Kasper, 7 Cir......