Turner v. United States
| Decision Date | 13 April 1954 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. 2067. |
| Citation | 139 F. Supp. 30 |
| Parties | Mabel T. TURNER v. UNITED STATES of America. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee |
John S. Wrinkle, Chattanooga, Tenn., for Mabel T. Turner.
John C. Crawford, Jr., U. S. Atty., Knoxville, Tenn., John P. Davis, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Chattanooga, Tenn., for the United States.
Samuel K. Wasaff, El Paso, Tex., and Will Allen Wilkerson, Chattanooga, Tenn., for Patsy Ruth Magee.
This is a contest between claimants under a policy of National Service Life Insurance. When the insurance was written the insured was unmarried and his mother was designated principal beneficiary. After marriage, it is claimed the beneficiary was changed so as to designate his wife principal beneficiary. After his death, both his widow and mother made claim to the Veterans Administration. The Administration decided in favor of the widow, and the mother brought suit.
The case was tried to the Court and a jury and there was a verdict for the plaintiff.
The widow filed a motion for a new trial on the grounds that there was no material evidence to support the verdict; that the Court erred in not directing a verdict in favor of the widow; that there was no evidence to support the plaintiff's claim that the instrument designated "Change of Beneficiary" was a forgery, or that it had been executed through fraud or coercion, or that the insured was mentally incompetent.
It is the duty of a trial judge to set aside a verdict and grant a new trial if he is of the opinion that the verdict is against the great weight of the evidence, or will result in a miscarriage of justice even though there may be substantial evidence which would prevent the direction of a verdict. Daffinrud v. United States, 7 Cir., 145 F.2d 724; Grayson v. Deal, D.C., 85 F.Supp. 431; Rothwell v. Pennsylvania R. Co., D.C., 87 F.Supp. 706.
The proof offered was sketchy. By stipulation it was agreed that the file in the hands of the United States Attorney was the official file of the Veterans Administration in regard to the deceased, James H. Tanner; and that it might have all the force and efficacy as though certified and authenticated by the Veterans Administration.
This file contained the following papers:
1. Application for $10,000 National Service Life Insurance dated February 27, 1943, signed by James H. Tanner, wherein the insured's mother was designated as principal beneficiary. Serial No. of soldier, 34722556.
2. Original and one carbon copy of Veterans Administration Form 336 bearing the caption "Change of Beneficiary" — "National Service Life Insurance", dated 6-24-46, bearing the signature of James H. Tanner, wherein the insured's wife, Mrs. Patsy Ruth Tanner, was designated as principal beneficiary. Serial No. of the soldier was stated to be RA34722556; and the signature of the insured was witnessed by Gail M. Jackson, CWO USA Personnel.
3. Copy of a letter on stationery of Veterans Administration, Washington, under date of August 5, 1946, addressed to T/4 James H. Tanner, B Btry Gun Tng Det, Fort Bliss, Texas, and signed by H. L. McCoy, C. A. Zoller, Director Underwriting Service, the letter reading: "Your request for change of beneficiary in connection with an application for National Service Life Insurance, recently submitted by you, has been received and made of record."
There was no evidence as to the genuineness of the insured's signature on the application for insurance, nor on the application for a change of beneficiary.
The case for the mother was grounded on the claim that the signature on the application for a change of beneficiary was a forgery, or was obtained by duress or undue influence, or at a time when the insured was mentally incompetent.
There was, however, no proof of forgery or undue influence or mental incapacity.
The only evidence of any infirmity in the signature to the application for a change of beneficiary was the comparison of the signature on the original application with the signature on the paper purporting to change the beneficiary, and the claim that there was such an obvious difference as to wholly discredit the genuineness of the latter signature. It was argued that the burden rested on the widow to show that the signature on the application to change the beneficiary was genuine; and that in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bivens v. Black, 3:97-CV-115.
...against the great weight of the evidence or if a miscarriage of justice would result if a new trial was not granted. Turner v. United States, 139 F.Supp. 30 (E.D.Tenn.1954), aff'd 229 F.2d 944 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 351 U.S. 970, 76 S.Ct. 1038, 100 L.Ed. 1489 (1956); see also Sandlin v. ......