Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Home Indemnity Co. v. Vezolles

Home Indem. Co. v. Vezolles, 128 F.2d 257 (6th Cir. 1942)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1942-05-04
Topic
bankruptcy

PER CURIAM. ' This case came on to be heard upon the record, briefs, supplemental memoranda, and oral argument of counsel. And it appearing that the action arises out of an automobile accident occurring in the state of Kentucky, and is based upon a liability insurance policy issued in Kentucky b.y appellant; .and that the court found that the owner of the automobile gave implied permission to the driver to use the car at the time of the accident; and that while the driver deviated from the contemplated use, the deviation was slight and not specifically forbidden by the owner; and it appearing that the District Court did not err in concluding as a matter of law that the driver, at the time of the accident, was operating the car within the terms of .the implied permission ; Cf. Fleichmann Co. v. Howe, 213 Ky. 110, 280 S.W. 496; United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Home Indemnity Co. v. Vezolles. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
5 opinions
HOME INDEMNITY CO., N.Y., v. VEZOLLES,128 F.2d 257(6th Cir. 1942)
HOME INDEMNITY CO., N.Y., v. VEZOLLES.
No. 9012.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
May 4, 1942.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Kentucky; Shackelford Miller, Jr., Judge.

Action by Katie Vezolles against the Home Indemnity Company, New York, on an automobile liability policy. Defendant's motions for new trial and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict were overruled by the District Court,38 F. Supp. 455, and from the judgment of that court, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.
Davis, Boehl, Viser Marcus, of Louisville, Ky., for appellant.

Simeon S. Jacobs and Laurence S. Grauman, both of Louisville, for appellee.Page 258
Before ALLEN, HAMILTON, and McALLISTER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This case came on to be heard upon the record, briefs, supplemental memoranda, and oral argument of counsel. And it appearing that the action arises out of an automobile accident occurring in the state of Kentucky, and is based upon a liability insurance policy issued in Kentucky by appellant; and that the court found that the owner of the automobile gave implied permission to the driver to use the car at the time of the accident; and that while the driver deviated from the contemplated use, the deviation was slight and not specifically forbidden by the owner; and it appearing that the District Court did not err in concluding as a matter of law that the driver, at the time of the accident, was operating the car within the terms of the implied permission; Cf. Fleichmann Co. v. Howe,213 Ky. 110,280 S.W. 496; United States Fidelity Guaranty Co. v. Hall,237 Ky. 393,35 S.W.2d 550:

It is ordered that the judgment appealed from be, and it hereby is, affirmed.