Judgment for plaintiff. See, also, 40 F.2d 739. CAVANAH, District Judge.
Jurisdiction has been conferred upon the courts to hear and determine all claims arising under these war risk insurance policies where there has been a disagreement between the claimant and the Bureau. 38 U.S.C.A. ยง 445. And, while the finding of the Bureau as to the right of an insured to compensation on account of disability is binding upon the courts (Silberschein v. U.S., 266 U.S. 221, 225, 45 S.Ct. 69, 69 L.Ed. 256; Crawford v. U.S. [C.C.A.2d] 40 F.2d 199), the effect of such finding upon the reinstatement of the policy is a matter for the courts to determine, as is also the question as to whether the insured was or was not at that time dead or totally and permanently disabled (U.S. v. Knott [C.C.A. 6th] 69 F.2d 907; U.S. v. Hendrickson [C.C.A.10th] 53 F.2d 797, 799, 800; U.S. v. Vance [C.C.A.8th] 48 F.2d 472; U.S. v. Crowell [C.C.A.8th] 48 F.2d 475; Sprencel v. U.S. [C.C.A.5th] 47 F.2d 501; Hollrich v. U.S. [D.C.] 40 F.2d 739; Hegg v. U.S. [D.C.] 21 F.2d 622; 35 Opinions of Atty. Gen. 241). As was said by Judge McDermott, speaking for the Circuit Court of Appeals of the Tenth Circuit in the Hendrickson Case, supra: "`The appellee here is not asking for compensation; he is seeking an adjudication of his rights under his insurance contract.
Jurisdiction has been conferred upon the courts to hear and determine all claims arising under these war risk insurance policies where there has been a disagreement between the claimant and the Bureau. 38 USCA ยง 445. And, while the finding of the Bureau as to the right of an insured to compensation on account of disability is binding upon the courts [Silberschein v. U.S., 266 U.S. 221, 225, 45 S. Ct. 69, 69 L. Ed. 256, Crawford v. U.S. (C.C.A.2d 40 F.2d 199], the effect of such finding upon the reinstatement of the policy is a matter for the courts to determine, as is also the question as to whether the insured was or was not at that time dead or totally and permanently disabled [U.S. v. Knott (C.C.A. 6th) 69 F.2d 907; U.S. v. Hendrickson (C.C.A. 10th) 53 F.2d 797, 799, 800; U.S. v. Vance (C.C.A. 8th) 48 F.2d 472; U.S. v. Crowell (C.C.A. 8th) 48 F.2d 475; Sprencel v. U.S. (C.C.A. 5th) 47 F.2d 501; Hollrich v. U.S. (D.C.) 40 F.2d 739; Hegg v. U.S. (D.C.) 21 F.2d 622; 35 Opinions of Atty. Gen. 241]. As was said by Judge McDermott, speaking for the Circuit Court of Appeals of the Tenth Circuit in the Hendrickson Case, supra: "The appellee here is not asking for compensation; he is seeking an adjudication of his rights under his insurance contract.
A claim was defended on the same ground in Idaho, and again without success. Hollrich v. United States (D.C.) 40 F.2d 739; Id. (D.C.) 49 F.2d 445. The contention was presented to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and held to be without merit (Sprencel v. United States, 47 F.2d 501); and still later to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, with similar result. United States v. Vance, 48 F.2d 472.