Stuthman v. United States
Decision Date | 08 November 1933 |
Docket Number | No. 9705.,9705. |
Citation | 67 F.2d 521 |
Parties | STUTHMAN v. UNITED STATES. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
C. A. Wilson and E. B. Adams, both of Hot Springs, S. D., for appellant.
E. D. Barron, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Sioux Falls, S. D. (Olaf Eidem, U. S. Atty., of Sioux Falls, S. D., and Byron S. Payne, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Pierre, S. D., on the brief), for the United States.
Before GARDNER, WOODROUGH, and VAN VALKENBURGH, Circuit Judges.
This is an action on a contract of war risk insurance, in which the pleadings are in conventional form.
The parties will be referred to as they appeared in the lower court.
After a jury had been impaneled and sworn, one of plaintiff's attorneys made an opening statement of the case to the jury, reciting that before the war plaintiff was an able-bodied man, able to do the hardest kind of farm work; that he enlisted in the service, was sent to Fort Riley, Kan. and then transferred to Camp Cody, at Deming, N. M.; that he took out a policy of war risk insurance, the premiums on which, during his service, were deducted from his monthly pay as a soldier; that the policy was kept in force by payment of premiums to the 1st of May, 1920; that he was totally and permanently disabled while the policy was in force; and then, after reciting plaintiff's various vicissitudes while in the service, his sickness, and his hospitalization, his honorable discharge at Camp Cody on December 10, 1918, and his return to Hot Springs, S. D., the attorney stated, referring to plaintiff:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wilkey v. State ex rel. Smith, 6 Div. 603.
...favor, that no cause of action exists. See Illinois Power & Light Corp. v. Hurley [8 Cir.], 49 F.2d 681, 684; Stuthman v. United States [[8 Cir.], 67 F.2d 521, 523." It be noted that in the Oscanyan case, supra, the suit was sought to be rested upon an illegal contract or that which sought ......
-
Boland v. Love
...favor, that no cause of action exists. See Illinois Power & Light Corp. v. Hurley, 8 Cir., 49 F.2d 681, 684; Stuthman v. United States, 8 Cir., 67 F.2d 521, 523." (Emphasis Clearly, we must grant plaintiff the benefit of the principles to be deduced from the foregoing exposition as we consi......
-
Easley v. Empire Inc.
...counsel in opening statement. See Oscanyan v. Arms Co., 13 Otto 261, 263, 103 U.S. 261, 263, 26 L.Ed. 539 (1880); Stuthman v. United States, 67 F.2d 521, 523 (8th Cir.1933); Hays v. Missouri Pacific Railroad, 304 S.W.2d 800, 803 We also agree with the district court that issues of control, ......
-
Rose v. United States
...103 U.S. 261, 264, 26 L.Ed. 539; Lucas v. Hamilton Realty Corporation, 1939, 70 App.D.C. 277, 105 F.2d 800, 803; Stuthman v. United States, 8 Cir., 1933, 67 F.2d 521, 523; McGovern v. Hitt, 1933, 62 App.D.C. 33, 64 F.2d 156, The point is made that the evidence adduced at the trial was not s......