32 F.2d 512 - Dodd v. Union Indemnity Co. — 32 F.2d 512

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently June 1998

9 federal appellate ·

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

¶1Hiram M. Smith, of Richmond, Va. (Pollard & Smith, of Richmond, Va., on the brief), for appellant.

¶2Frank H. Atwill and Alexander H. Sands, both of Richmond, Va. (Sands, Williams & Lightfoot, of Richmond, Va., on the brief), for appellee.

¶3Before WADDILL, Circuit Judge, and SOPER and ERNEST F. COCHRAN, District Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5We decided upon the former'appeal in this case [21 F.(2d) 709] that the holder of an accident insurance policy was not entitled to recover for an accident which he had suffered because he had made material misrepresentations of fact in his application to the insurance company. He had failed to state, when questioned on the subject, that on six prior occasions he had collected indemnity for accident or sickness under a similar policy. The judgment of the District Court was therefore reversed and the ease remanded. At the second trial in the. lower court, there was no substantial change in the testimony in regard to the statements in the application, or their materiality to the risk, and consequently the District Judge directed a verdict for the company. The proceedings in this court on the secbnd appeal have taken the form of a re-argument of the point fully considered and decided in our former opinion. Under these circumstances, we think that opinion is the law of the case and should not now be reviewed. Linkous v. Virginian Ry. Co. (C. C. A. 4th) 242 F. 916, certiorari denied 245 U. S. 649, 38 S. Ct. 10, 62 L. Ed. 530; First National Bank of Oxford v. Old Dominion Trust Co. (C. C. A. 4th) 284 F. 128; Priester v. Southern Ry. Co. (C. C. A. 4th) 6 F.(2d) 878; Thompson v. Maxwell, 168 U. S. 456, 18 S. Ct. 121, 42 L. Ed. 539; Illinois v. Illinois Central R. R. Co., 184 U. S. 77, 91 to 93, 22 S. Ct. 300, 46 L. Ed. 440; Messinger v. Anderson, 225 U. S. 436, 32 S. Ct. 739, 56 L. Ed. 1152.

¶6Affirmed.