Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Jackson v. United States

281 U.S. 344

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1930-04-14
Topic
general

Mr. Justice Butler delivered the opinion of the Court. This action was brought in the United States court for Kansas to recover for permanent total disability on a war risk insurance policy. The court gave plaintiff judgment for the amount of the accrued installments with interest on .each to date of the judgment, and directed that the judgment bear interest until paid. 24 F. (2d) 981.

Citator

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

Cited by
10 opinions
JACKSONv. UNITED STATES,281 U.S. 344(1930)
50 S.Ct. 294
JACKSONv. UNITED STATES.
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT.
No. 463.
Argued March 4, 5, 1930.
Decided April 14, 1930.
A judgment against the United States for accrued instalments under a war risk policy of insurance against permanent total disability should not include interest.34 F.2d 241, affirmed.
CERTIORARI,280 U.S. 549, to review a judgment of the Circuit
Court of Appeals which reversed a judgment of the District Court,
24 F.2d 981, in an action on a war risk insurance policy.
Page 345
Mr. Thomas Amory Lee, with whomMr. Turner W. Bellwas on the brief, for petitioner.Mr. Claude R. Branch, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, with whomAttorney General MitchellandMessrs. J.Frank Staley, W. Clifton Stone, andErwin N. Griswoldwere on the brief, for the United States.Messrs. Milo J. WarnerandRobert Newbeginfiled a brief asamici curiae, by special leave of Court.
MR. JUSTICE BUTLER delivered the opinion of the Court.
This action was brought in the United States court for Kansas to recover for permanent total disability on a war risk insurance policy. The court gave plaintiff judgment for the amount of the accrued installments with interest on each to date of the judgment, and directed that the judgment bear interest until paid.24 F.2d 981. The United States took the case to the Circuit Court of Appeals and there contended that plaintiff was not entitled to interest. The Circuit Court of Appeals rightly reversed the judgment.34 F.2d 241.

The case is ruled by this court's decision on the third question certified inUnited Statesv.Worley, announced this day,ante, p. 339.Judgment affirmed.