Seals v. United States, 6963.
| Decision Date | 24 April 1934 |
| Docket Number | No. 6963.,6963. |
| Citation | 70 F.2d 519 |
| Parties | SEALS v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Richard B. Montgomery, Jr., of New Orleans, La., and K. Hundley, of Alexandria, La., for appellant.
Philip H. Mecom, U. S. Atty., and Elmer A. Mottet, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Shreveport, La., and Fendall Marbury, of Washington, D. C., Atty., Department of Justice, for the United States.
Before BRYAN, SIBLEY, and WALKER, Circuit Judges.
This action was brought in June, 1931, on a war risk insurance policy which was issued to appellant prior to his discharge from the Army on March 31, 1919, and which was not kept in force by the payment of premiums after the month of May, 1919. Verdict and judgment were rendered in favor of the appellee following the denial of a motion made by the appellant upon the conclusion of the evidence that a verdict in his favor be directed. Appellant's claim that he was entitled to a reversal of the judgment was based upon the above-mentioned ruling, upon the action of the court in sustaining an objection to the admission of an affidavit, described below, which was offered in evidence by the appellant, and upon the overruling of appellant's motion for a new trial.
The record furnishes no justification for the contention made in behalf of the appellant that uncontroverted evidence showed that he became totally and permanently disabled while the policy was in force. The evidence relied on by the appellant to support a finding that he was totally and permanently disabled before the lapse of the policy was controverted in material respects by other evidence, which other evidence included statements contained in written instruments signed by the appellant, which statements materially conflicted with testimony given by the appellant in the trial. Appellant admitted that he signed those instruments, and there was testimony tending to prove that appellant signed them after the contents thereof were read by or to him. It is not fairly open to dispute that a phase of the evidence produced in the trial negatived the conclusion that appellant was totally and permanently disabled while the policy was in force. We think no good purpose would be served by setting out that evidence or further discussing it. It is enough to say that the evidence as a whole was such that the court is not chargeable with error for refusing to direct a verdict in favor of the appellant. Walters v. United States (C. C. A.) 63...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jennings v. C. M. & W. Drilling Co.
...as hearsay, except in certain cases which are exceptions to that rule, but which are not applicable in the case at bar. Seals v. United States, 5 Cir., 70 F.2d 519; Eikel v. Voris, D.C., 101 F.Supp. 963; Williams v. Laclede-Christy Clay Products Co., Mo.App., 227 S.W.2d 507. The question be......
-
Gilmore v. United States, 8430.
...of the history of the case as related by the patient or other persons. Cf. United States v. Timmons, 5 Cir., 68 F.2d 654; Seals v. United States, 5 Cir., 70 F.2d 519; United States v. Smart, 5 Cir., 87 F.2d In its charge, the court instructed the jury that, in civil cases, ordinarily a pers......
-
Birmingham Electric Co. v. Cochran
... ... to the rule which excludes hearsay. Seals v. United ... States, 5 Cir., 70 F.2d 519; Martin v. Hall, 72 ... Ala ... ...
-
Pappas v. GUARANTEE INSURANCE COMPANY
...the doctor was not available for cross-examination. We think it was clearly hearsay and should not have been admitted. Seals v. United States, 5 Cir., 70 F.2d 519; Luke v. United States, 5 Cir., 84 F.2d 823; United States v. Two Acres of Land, 7 Cir., 144 F.2d 207; Good Holding Co. v. Boswe......