Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
FURBEE v. UNITED STATES, 1934 — 73 F.2d 190 · caselaw · US
Property · MBE-tested
FURBEE v. UNITED STATES
73 F.2d 190·United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·1934
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
FURBEE v. UNITED STATES.
No. 3670.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Oct. 11, 1934.
John B. Wyatt, of Clarksburg, W. Ya. (Wyatt & Randolph, of Clarksburg, W. Ya., on the brief), for appellant.
Howard L. Robinson, U. S. Atty., of Clarksburg, W. Ya., for the United States.
Before NORTIICOTT and SOPER, Circuit Judges, and MYERS, District Judge.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiff in the District Court sought to recover upon a war risk insurance policy, which lapsed for nonpayment of premiums on April 1, 1919, unless at that date the soldier was totally and permanently disabled. The suit was not brought until March 11, 1931. The canso of disability was said lo he tuberculosis, from whicli disease the insured died on April 1, 1931. There was, however, no evidence tending to show that the insured was so afflicted with the disease on April 1, 1919. Indeed the first positive diagnosis of lung impairment was made in 1922, and even then there was nothing to show that the disease was incurable. Hence there is nothing to distinguish this ease in principle from many others which have been considered by the courts. See Lumbra v. United States, 290 U. S. 551, 54 S. Ct. 272, 78 L. Ed. 492; United States v. Diehl (C. C. A.) 62 F.(2d) 343; Andrews v. United States (C. C. A.) 63 F. (2d) 184; Nicolay v. United States (C. C. A.) 51 F.(2d) 170; United States v. Sumner (C. C. A.) 69 F.(2d) 770.
The action of the District Court in directing a verdict for the defendant was unavoidable, and its judgment is therefore affirmed.