From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. United States

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Apr 27, 1957
243 F.2d 573 (4th Cir. 1957)

Opinion

No. 7371.

Argued April 8, 1957.

Decided April 27, 1957.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia at Huntington; Harry E. Watkins, Judge.

Randolph Bias, Williamson, W. Va. (Bias Bias, Williamson, W.Va., on brief), for appellant.

J. Brooks Lawson, Williamson, W. Va. (J. Brooks Lawson, Jr., Williamson, W. Va., on brief), for appellee Frances Marie Williamson.

Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SOPER and SOBELOFF, Circuit Judges.


This is an appeal from a judgment on a National Service Life Insurance policy in a contest between the widow and the mother of a deceased soldier. The mother had originally been named as beneficiary, and the only question in the case was whether the beneficiary had been changed. The question was one of fact which the trial judge resolved in favor of the widow, holding that the evidence showed an intent to change the beneficiary together with an affirmative act directed to that end. There is nothing in the record which would justify us in disturbing his findings. The facts and applicable principles of law are fully set forth in his opinion, which is adopted as the opinion of this court; and nothing need be added thereto. See United States v. Williams, D.C., 145 F. Supp. 308. See also Aguilar v. United States, 9 Cir., 226 F.2d 414, certiorari denied 351 U.S. 955, 76 S.Ct. 852, 100 L.Ed. 1478.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Williams v. United States

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Apr 27, 1957
243 F.2d 573 (4th Cir. 1957)
Case details for

Williams v. United States

Case Details

Full title:Nettie WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, and Frances Marie…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Date published: Apr 27, 1957

Citations

243 F.2d 573 (4th Cir. 1957)

Citing Cases

Phoenix Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Adams

In our evaluation of the sufficiency of the evidence, we review the district court's factual findings for…