Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Brown v. United States

164 F.2d 490

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1947-11-28
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment against her in a suit for a declaratory judgment with respect to rights under a national service life insurance policy issued to a deceased soldier whom she claims was her husband. The district court held that the plaintiff, although named as beneficiary, was not the wife of the insured and hence was not entitled to the proceeds of the policy. The question was one which was to be determined by the law of New Jersey, the state in which the alleged marriage of the parties took place. In an opinion by Judge Meaney, D.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Brown v. United States. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
4 opinions
BROWN v. UNITED STATES,164 F.2d 490(3rd Cir. 1947)
BROWN v. UNITED STATES et al.
No. 9477.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Argued November 21, 1947.
Decided November 28, 1947.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of New Jersey; Thomas F. Meaney, Judge.

Action by Rachael Brown against the United States of America and Nellie Brown for declaratory judgment respecting rights under a national service life insurance policy. Judgment in favor of Nellie Brown,72 F. Supp. 153, and plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.
Lionel P. Kristeller, of Newark, N.J. (Kristeller Zucker, of Newark, N.J., on the brief), for appellant.

Edward V. Ryan, Asst. U.S. Atty., of Newark, N.J. (Edgar H. Rossbach, U.S. Atty., of Newark, N.J., on the brief), for United States.

Samuel Levin, of Newark, N.J., for Nellie Brown.
Before MARIS, O'CONNELL and KALODNER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment against her in a suit for a declaratory judgment with respect to rights under a national service life insurance policy issued to a deceased soldier whom she claims was her husband. The district court held that the plaintiff, although named as beneficiary, was not the wife of the insured and hence was not entitled to the proceeds of the policy. The question was one which was to be determined by the law of New Jersey, the state in which the alleged marriage of the parties took place. In an opinion by judge Meaney, D.C.,72 F. Supp. 153, the district court correctly stated and applied that law. We need add nothing to what is there said.

The judgment will be affirmed.