Legal Opinion · Dissent

Kathryn A. Tucker, Etc. v. Vester G. Brady, Guardian Ad Litem of Doris Jean Lehman, Jacqueline Anne Lehman and James William Lehman

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided July 3, 1962No. 17600_1Published

1DissentChambers, Chief Judge

I dissent.

While I do not say that it was stipulated that the wife Kathryn had no knowledge of the Douglas Company plan at the time of the execution of her property settlement agreement, yet it was agreed she would testify she had no knowledge. While normally I strongly advocate the right of a trial judge to disbelieve a party as a witness, here there was no demeanor of a live witness. Maybe Kathryn was an active partner in the family business and knew all about the Douglas fringe benefits. But I believe a goodly percentage of all American women still let their husbands handle without much…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Grimm v. GrimmCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
  2. Connecticut General Life Insurance Co. v. HartshornCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1956

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

Powered by the Exa API