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.
UNITED STATES v. ROSBOROUGH, 1932 — 62 F.2d 348 · caselaw · US
General
UNITED STATES v. ROSBOROUGH
62 F.2d 348·United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·1932
Before PARKER and NORTHCOTT, Circuit Judges, and PAUL, District Judge.
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
UNITED STATES v. ROSBOROUGH.
No. 3311.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Dec. 2, 1932.
S. Henry Edmunds, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., of Charleston, S. C. (Henry E. Davis, U. S. Atty., of Florence, S. C., and Davis G. Arnold and Lawrence A. Lawlor, Attys., Veterans’ Administration, both of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for the United States.
R. K. Wise, of Columbia, S. C., for appellee.
Before PARKER and NORTHCOTT, Circuit Judges, and PAUL, District Judge.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
This is a suit on a policy of war risk insurance. The policy was kept in force by payment of premiums until August 31, 1927. The question in the case is whether plaintiff became totally and permanently disabled prior to that time. There is evidence that he had tuberculosis in 1925, but it was apparently in an arrested state, and there is no evidence whatever to support the conclusion that the disability resulting therefrom was either total or permanent in character. He worked in various positions in 1925 and 192-6, although he received hospital treatment during a portion of the time. From November, 1927, to October, 1928-, he worked as clerk in a country hotel, receiving from $25 to $35 per month in addition to room and ,board. He gave up this position because the hotel changed hands. Following this, he worked for several months as a truck driver and at the trade of carpenter. In 1930 he worked for four months in the census office at Columbia. It is clear that under the principles laid down in U. S. v. Diehl, (C. C. A.) 62 F.(2d) 343, this day decided, verdict should have been directed for the government.
Reversed.