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.
IVEY v. UNITED STATES, 1933 — 67 F.2d 204 · caselaw · US
General
IVEY v. UNITED STATES
67 F.2d 204·United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·1933
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
IVEY v. UNITED STATES.
No. 3533.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Oct. 13, 1933.
E. J. Wellons, of Smithfield, N. C., for appellants.
W. H. Fisher, U. S. Atty., of Wilmington, N. C. (T. P. Regan, of Charlotte, N. C., Atty., Department of Justice, on the brief), for the United States. .
Before PARKER, NORTHCOTT, and SOPER, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal in a war risk insurance case in which verdict was directed for the government. The policy was allowed to lapse for nonpayment of premium in 1919, and the insured died of pulmonary tuberculosis in 1930. The contention of plaintiff is that, at the time of the lapse of the policy, insured was afflicted with tuberculosis. The trouble with plaintiff’s ease, however, is that there is nothing in the evidence to show that at that time the disease had reached such stage as to constitute total and permanent disability. This being true, verdict was properly directed for the defendant. U. S. v. Diehl (C. C. A. 4th) 62 F.(2d) 343; U. S. v. Rosborough (C. C. A. 4th) 62 F.(2d) 348; U. S. v. Stack (C. C. A. 4th) 62 F. (2d) 1056; Eggen v. U. S. (C. C. A. 8th) 58 F.(2d) 616, 620. The judgment appealed from will he affirmed. Affirmed.