Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

American Surety Company v. Mildred A. Horton and William E. Horton, Individually, and D.B.A. Horton Funeral Home, Etc., 11553_1 (1952)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Number: 11553_1 Visitors: 1
Filed: Dec. 17, 1952
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 200 F.2d 557 AMERICAN SURETY COMPANY, Appellant, v. Mildred A. HORTON and William E. Horton, Individually, and d.b.a. Horton Funeral Home, Etc., Appellees. No. 11553. United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit. Dec. 17, 1952. F. H. Parvin, Greeneville, Tenn., for appellant. Edgerton, McAfee, Armistead & Davis, Knoxville, Tenn., and W. J. Barron, Morristown, Tenn., for appellees. Before ALLEN, MARTIN and MILLER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. 1 This case having been considered on the record and on
More

200 F.2d 557

AMERICAN SURETY COMPANY, Appellant,
v.
Mildred A. HORTON and William E. Horton, Individually, and
d.b.a. Horton Funeral Home, Etc., Appellees.

No. 11553.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

Dec. 17, 1952.

F. H. Parvin, Greeneville, Tenn., for appellant.

Edgerton, McAfee, Armistead & Davis, Knoxville, Tenn., and W. J. Barron, Morristown, Tenn., for appellees.

Before ALLEN, MARTIN and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

1

This case having been considered on the record and on the oral arguments and briefs of the attorneys;

2

And it appearing that there was substantial evidence to support the verdict of the jury; that no error was committed in the charge of the Court but, on the contrary, that the charge clearly required the jury to find bad faith on the part of the appellant insurer in order to justify a verdict for plaintiffs;

3

And no material error appearing in the conduct of the trial below;

4

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer