Woodward v. United States
Decision Date | 24 December 1949 |
Docket Number | No. 615.,615. |
Citation | 88 F. Supp. 152 |
Parties | WOODWARD v. UNITED STATES. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
Miller & Fairman, Springfield, Mo., for plaintiff.
Wm. P. Sanford, Springfield, Mo., for defendant.
Plaintiff has filed his motion for an order to set aside the verdict and judgment in the above cause and for an entry of judgment conformable to motion for a directed verdict at the conclusion of the trial. In the alternative, the plaintiff seeks a new trial.
The motions are combined and in great detail. They are supported by brief containing suggestions in accordance with a rule of court. In the brief counsel for plaintiff have cited numerous authorities. As indicated by able counsel in their brief, this case was heretofore tried and an opinion rendered by the Circuit Court of Appeals. Such opinion is reported 8 Cir., 167 F.2d 774. Although many questions were presented to the Court of Appeals on the former appeal, the case was reversed on one point only. The court held that the trial judge erred in admitting a certified copy of a birth record on file with the proper authorities of the State.
In the several motions counsel have raised, in effect, the identical points with respect to other records and evidence admitted by the court over the objections of counsel. These have all been considered and the court remains unconvinced that the case was not properly tried.
1. With respect to the records, Section 1732, Title 28 U.S.C.A. specifically provides that records of the kind here made in the regular course of business "shall be admissible as evidence of such act, transaction, occurrence, or event * * *." Unquestionably the records admitted in evidence were made in the regular course of business. Section 9777, Mo.R.S.1939, Mo.R.S.A., specifically provide that: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Woodward v. United States
...Act of 1940,1 the husband is entitled to the proceeds in this case. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court which had held, 88 F.Supp. 152, that an adopted brother was not a permissible beneficiary under § 602(g). 8 Cir., 1950, 185 F.2d 134. See also the prior opinion of that court......