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.
Mrs. Ada V. SMITH, Plaintiff in Error, v. FEDERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant in Error, 1925 — 8 F.2d 1022 · caselaw · US
General
Mrs. Ada V. SMITH, Plaintiff in Error, v. FEDERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant in Error
8 F.2d 1022·United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·1925
Before WALKER, BRYAN, and FOSTER, Circuit Judges.
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
Mrs. Ada V. SMITH, Plaintiff in Error, v. FEDERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant in Error.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
November 23, 1925.)
No. 4610.
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Texas; Wm. H. Atwell, Judge.
For opinion below see 6 F.(2d) 283.
Henry C. Coke, Alex S. Coke, Rosser J. Coke, and Thomas G. Murnane, all of Dallas, Tex., for plaintiff in error.
Lawrence C. McBride and Charles F. O’Donnell, both of Dallas, Tex. (Cockrell, McBride, O’Donnell & Hamilton, of Dallas, Tex., on the brief), for defendant in error.
Before WALKER, BRYAN, and FOSTER, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
This is an action on an
insurance policy, which provides against loss resulting from death from bodily injury effected through external, violent, or accidental means. The District Court directed a verdict for the insurance company. The facts are very similar to the facts in Carswell v. Railway Mail Association, 8 F.(2d) 612, decided by this court October 21,1925, in which it was held that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover, and the question of law involved is the same.
Following the decision in the cited ease, the judgment is affirmed.