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. HODSON, 1933 — 64 F.2d 119 · caselaw · US
General
UNITED STATES v. HODSON
64 F.2d 119·United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth 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
UNITED STATES v. HODSON.
No. 9537.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
March 20, 1933.
Frank F. Wilson, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Mount Ayr, Towa (R. W. Colflesh, U. S. Atty., and Ray C. Fountain, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Dos Moines, Iowa, on the brief), for the United States.
Volney Diltz, of Des Moines, Iowa, for appellee.
Before KENYON and SANBORN, Circuit Judges, and REEVES, District Judge.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a judgment entered upon the verdict of a jury in an action upon a policy of War Risk Insurance. The appellant assigns as error the denial of its motion for a directed verdict.
The record shows that the appellee was in the service of the Unite,d States, as a soldier, from, December .15, 1917, to May 6, 1918; that he had a policy of War Risk Insurance; that he was discharged on May 6, 1918, upon a certificate of disability stating that he had pulmonary tuberculosis and hyperthyroidism ; that within thirty days after his return to his home he was employed at his pre-war occupation as a molder; that for a number of years thereafter he was gainfully employed and worked with reasonable regularity. At the time of trial he had active pulmonary tuberculosis in a moderate degree. There is no medical testimony that the appellee at the time he was discharged was, or at any time since has been, totally and permanently disabled.
This case is clearly ruled by Nicolay v. United States (C. C. A. 10) 51 F.(2d) 170; Hirt v. United States (C. C. A. 10) 56 F.(2d) 80; Eggen v. United States (C. C. A. 8) 58 F.(2d) 616; United States v. Peters (C. C. A. 8) 62 F.(2d) 977.
The judgment is reversed.