Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

175 F.2d 40

Docket No. 12000.

Downing v. Downing

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided May 26, 1949.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1949-05-26

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently April 1961

2 counsel of record

Relies on Kendig v. Kendig

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1949-05-26

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Francis F. Yunker, Portland, Or., for appellants.

¶2Wilbur, Beckett, Oppenheimer, Mautz & Souther and Arno H. Denecke, Portland, Or., for appellee Dorothy A. Downing.

¶3Before HEALY, BONE, and POPE, Circuit Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5This is a suit by the widow of an insured serviceman to recover on a National Service Life Insurance policy originally designating the insured’s mother as beneficiary. The complaint alleged that the veteran had subsequent to his marriage changed the beneficiary of the policy from the mother to the wife. The court found that a document evidencing the change had been executed by. the insured but was inadvertently lost while in possession of the United States Army. Judgment was accordingly given in favor of the plaintiff.

¶6The case on its facts is closely similar to Kendig v. Kendig, 9 Cir., 170 F.2d 750, in which we held it to have been error to direct a non-suit. The judgment is affirmed on the authority of the Kendig case.

/175/f2d/40 · .json · Public domain