Tyson v. United States, 192
| Decision Date | 03 February 1936 |
| Docket Number | No. 192,192 |
| Citation | 80 L.Ed. 520,297 U.S. 121,56 S.Ct. 390 |
| Parties | TYSON v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. J. M. Broughton, of Raleigh, N.C., for petitioner.
Messrs. Homer S. Cummings, Atty. Gen., and Will G. Beardslee, of Washington, D.C., for the United States.
Petitioner, Tyson, sued to recover total permanent disability benefits under a war risk term insurance contract kept in force by premium payments while the insured remained in service. The petition, filed November 17, 1932, alleged that disability had existed ever since the claimant's discharge from the Army, December 18, 1918.
The trial court dismissed the cause for want of jurisdiction, being of opinion that it was not instituted within the prescribed time. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment.
July 3, 1931, Tyson filed his claim with the Veterans' Administration. November 16, 1932, he received from it a letter, dated November 12, 1932, and mailed at Washington November 14, 1932, which stated that this had been denied. Also:
The question for decision is whether the petitioner brought suit within the time permitted by section 19, Act of 1924, as amended, section 445, title 38, United States Code, c. 849, § 4, c. 863, §§ 1, 2, 46 Stat. 992, 1016, approved July 3, 1930 (38 U.S.C.A. § 445).
'No suit on yearly renewable term insurance shall be allowed under this section unless the same shall have been brought within six years after the right accrued for which the claim is made or within one year after the date of approval of this amendatory Act (July 3, 1930), whichever is the later date; * * * Provided, That for the purposes of this section it shall be deemed that the right accrued on the happening of the contingency on which the claim is founded: Provided further, That this limitation is sus- pended for the period elapsing between the filing in the bureau (Veterans' Administration) of the claim sued upon and the denial of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Meakins
...4 Cir., 61 F.2d 1002; United States v. Densmore, 9 Cir., 58 F.2d 748; Tyson v. United States, 4 Cir., 76 F.2d 533, affirmed 297 U.S. 121, 56 S. Ct. 390, 80 L.Ed. 520. ...
-
Munro v. United States
...be followed. Walton v. United States, 73 F.(2d) 15 (C.C.A.8); Tyson v. United States, 76 F. (2d) 533 (C.C.A.4), affirmed 297 U.S. 121, 56 S.Ct. 390, 80 L.Ed. 520; Creasy v. United States, 4 F.Supp. 175, 179 (D.C. W.D.Va.); Spencer v. United States, 14 F.Supp. 46, 47 (D.C.D.Mass.); Henry v. ......
-
American Const. Co. v. United States, 48992.
...112 A.L.R. 1130. The decision of the Fourth Circuit in Tyson v. United States, supra, was appealed to the Supreme Court, 297 U.S. 121, 56 S.Ct. 390, 80 L.Ed. 520, and there affirmed on other grounds, the Court expressly refraining from passing on the question here under consideration. There......
-
Lopez v. United States
... ... Tyson v. United States (C.C. 82 F.2d 985 A.) 76 F.(2d) 533; Id., 56 S.Ct. 390, 80 L.Ed. ___; Weaver v. United States (C. C.A.) 72 F.(2d) 20 ... ...