From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Grigg

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Mar 5, 1928
24 F.2d 638 (9th Cir. 1928)

Opinion

Nos. 5261, 5264, 5263, 5262.

March 5, 1928.

In Error to the District Court of the United States for the District of Arizona.

Actions by James Walter Grigg, by one Wooten, by one Ledbetter, and by one Kent against the United States. Judgments for plaintiffs, and defendant brings error. Reversed.

John B. Wright, U.S. Atty., of Tucson, Ariz., and George R. Hill and G. Guy Axline, Asst. U.S. Attys., both of Phœnix, Ariz., and William Wolff Smith, C.L. Dawson, and Randolph C. Shaw, all of Washington, D.C., for the United States.

Stanley A. Jerman, of Phœnix, Ariz., for defendant in error Kent.

F.C. Struckmeyer, I.A. Jennings, and C.L. Strouss, all of Phœnix, Ariz., for other defendants in error.

Loy J. Molumby, of Great Falls, Mont., W.G. Beardslee, of Seattle, Wash., and Alvin Gerlack, of San Francisco, Cal., amici curiæ


The policy involved in this case lapsed for failure to pay premiums after February 1, 1919, unless the defendant in error was permanently and totally disabled prior to that date. No claim under the policy was made to the Director of the Veterans' Bureau until July 16, 1926, or until more than six years thereafter. The cause of action was therefore barred, and the judgment of the court below is reversed, on the authority of United States v. Sligh (No. 5260) 24 F.2d 636, just decided.

By stipulation of counsel, similar orders will be made in United States v. Wooten, No. 5264, United States v. Ledbetter, No. 5263, and United States v. Kent, No. 5262.


Summaries of

United States v. Grigg

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Mar 5, 1928
24 F.2d 638 (9th Cir. 1928)
Case details for

United States v. Grigg

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES v. GRIGG, with three other cases

Court:Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Mar 5, 1928

Citations

24 F.2d 638 (9th Cir. 1928)

Citing Cases

Baille v. United States

It is conceded that, unless the act referred to authorized the maintenance of the suit, it was barred. The…