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.
General
BRITT v. UNITED STATES
59 F.2d 733·United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit·1932
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
BRITT v. UNITED STATES.
No. 6057.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
June 27, 1932.
George J. Coleman, of Memphis, Tenn., for appellant.
H. C. Murchison, of Jackson, Tenn. (Dwyane D. Maddox, of Memphis, Tenn., on the brief), for the United States.
Before MOORMAN, HICKS, and SI-MONS, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Action was brought upon a policy of war risk insurance. At conclusion of plaintiff’s evidence the court below directed a verdict for defendant. The solo question was whether plaintiff became totally and permanently disabled during the life of the policy. He claimed to have become afflicted while in the army with colitis, epilepsy, and tuberculosis. The evidence of the medical witnesses in the face of his work record leaves much for speculation, hut interpreting it as the law requires most favorably to the plaintiff, wo are not satisfied that it was too unsubstantial to submit to the jury. The plaintiff was discharged from the army because of epilepsy. We assume that upon retrial it will appear by competent evidence whether the epilepsy with which he was afflicted at the time of discharge came upon him during the life of the policy or existed prior to his entry into the army, and whether it was of such type as rendered him totally and permanently disabled; also, whether there was any probable connection between symptoms of tuberculosis claimed to have been discovered while plaintiff was in the army and the incipient tuberculosis with which he was afflicted thirteen years later, and whether colitis alone could have brought about the claimed total and permanent disability.
Judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for new trial.