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.
KENNETH v. UNITED STATES, 1931 — 51 F.2d 122 · caselaw · US
General
KENNETH v. UNITED STATES
51 F.2d 122·United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana·1931
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
KENNETH v. UNITED STATES.
No. 1798.
District Court, W. D. Louisiana, Alexandria Division.
Jan. 9, 1931.
Jas. W. Jones, of Natchitoches, La., for plaintiff.
Philip H. Mecom, U. S. Atty., and Elmer A. Mottet, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Shreveport, La.
[MAJORITY — DAWKINS, District Judge.]
DAWKINS, District Judge.
This is a suit upon a claim of war risk insurance. In paragraph 7 of the petition plaintiff alleges that “On-, 19 — ,” he made application to the Veterans’ Bureau for the payment of insurance, which was refused, but he does not recite as to when the disagreement arose. Defendant has asked for oyer of the communications by which the application was made and the claim denied.
These documents are not the foundation of petitioner’s claim within the meaning of the state Code of Practice, and hence oyer is not the proper remedy. However, sufficient is disclosed by the pleadings to justify the court in requiring the plaintiff to set out specifically the date of the application as well as that of the disagreement with the Bureau. This is necessary to show whether or not the claim has been barred by limitations.
It is therefore ordered that the petitioner amend his pleading to show these dates, and, if this be not done within fifteen days from notice of this order, the suit will be dismissed.