Legal Opinion

Salzer v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided May 7, 1924No. Nos. 286-287PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Per curiam

We find it unnecessary to add much to the clear and careful opinion of Judge Mack. It is, and indeed must be, conceded that under a certificate of war risk insurance the beneficiary *768does not acquire a vested interest on the death of the insured. Cassarello v. United States (D. C.) 279 Fed. 396, affirming 271 Fed. 486; Helmholz et al. v. Horst et al. (C. C. A.) 294 Fed. 417.

Upon the facts here existing, the disposition of the insurance must be in accordance with the intestacy laws of New York. The question, then, is whether the insurance shall go to those who would benefit under the New York…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Cassarello v. United StatesDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1919
  2. Helmholz v. HorstCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1924
  3. Cassarello v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1922

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Wade v. MaddingTennessee Supreme Court · 1930
  2. In Re Dempster's EstateMichigan Supreme Court · 1929
  3. Mason's Administrator v. Mason's GuardianCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1931
  4. Sizemore v. Sizemore's GuardianCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1928
  5. Gregg v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1926

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API