Tudor v. United States
| Decision Date | 08 November 1929 |
| Docket Number | No. 20002.,20002. |
| Parties | TUDOR v. UNITED STATES (WILSON, Intervener). |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington |
Clarence Anderson, of Seattle, Wash., for plaintiff.
Lester Pope, Sp. Counsel U. S. Veterans Bureau, of Seattle, Wash., for defendant.
James M. Hay, of Seattle, Wash., for intervener.
BOURQUIN, District Judge (after stating the facts as above).
As originally enacted and when the policy issued, the War Risk Insurance Act (section 402, 40 Stat. 409) limited beneficiaries to the insured and his spouse, child, grandchild, parent, brother, or sister, and defined (section 22) "parent" to include father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, stepfather, and stepmother. Act March 4, 1925 (43 Stat. 1308, § 12 38 USCA § 511) re-enacted section 402 aforesaid, but added uncle, aunt, nephew, niece, brother-in-law, and sister-in-law. Act June 7, 1924, 43 Stat. 607, § 3 (38 USCA § 424), provides that where used in the Act, "unless the context otherwise requires (paragraph 4 38 US CA § 424, par. 4), the term `parent' includes a father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, father through adoption, mother through adoption, stepfather, and stepmother," and that (paragraph 5 38 USCA § 424, par. 5) "the terms `father' and `mother' include stepfathers and stepmothers, fathers and mothers through adoption, and persons who have stood in loco parentis to a member of the military or naval forces at any time prior to his enlistment or induction for a period of not less than one year."
Examination of all the various amendments and re-enactments of the War Risk Insurance Act discloses that, in the parts thereof devoted to various gratuities, the terms "father" and "mother" are generally used, the term "parent" as a sometime synonym by "the context" required; but in the part devoted to insurance the term "parent" is exclusively used. It would seem, therefore, that the beneficiaries of insurance do not include a person in loco parentis. They are excluded from the insurance, but admitted to the gratuities. Why Congress thus discriminated is not apparent, no more than why it excluded grandparents from the gratuities, but admitted them to the insurance. Nor is it material. The will of Congress controls, and to ascertain it every word must be given effect, every term must be given the meaning by Congress prescribed. When in repeated enactments it defined "parent" exclusive of persons in loco parentis, "father" and "mother" inclusive of them, and then limited insurance beneficiaries to "parent," its intent is clear; and it and settled principles of construction would be violated did the court do what Congress did not, viz., extend "parent" to include persons in loco parentis.
Moreover, during all the time the plaintiff is alleged to have been in loco parentis to insured, the latter had attained his majority, was an adult mentally and physically competent to provide for himself. In such circumstances the relationship has no legal sanction. It was so held in Howard v. U. S. (D. C.) 2 F.(2d) 170, the reasoning of which is believed to be sound in principle.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Niewiadomski v. United States
...considered the question carefully and at length and ruled that one could not stand in loco parentis to an adult. In Tudor v. United States, D.C.W.D.Wash., 36 F.2d 386, the Court in a ruling which was not necessary to the decision of the case held that one could not stand in loco parentis to......
-
Richards v. United States
...1924, 2 F.2d 170, the insured was an adult. The court held that one could not stand in loco parentis to an adult. In Tudor v. United States, D.C.W.D.Wash., 36 F. 2d 386, the court in a ruling which was not necessary to the decision of the case held that one could not stand in loco parentis ......
-
Adams v. Jackson
...of the military or naval forces at any time prior to his enlistment or induction for a period of not less than one year." In Tudor v. U.S., D.C., 36 F.2d 386, 387, the court construing these sections said: "Examination of all the various amendments and re-enactments of the War Risk Insuranc......
-
Adams v. Jackson
...of the military or naval forces at any time prior to his enlistment or induction for a period of not less than one year." In Tudor v. U. S., D.C., 36 F.2d 386, 387, the court in construing these sections "Examination of all the various amendments and re-enactments of the War Risk Insurance ......