CHICAGO, BURLINGTON & QUINCY RAILROAD COMPANY

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Bell, 351 F.2d 868 (6th Cir. 1965)
  …rther, at p. 311, “Much must be left to the sound discretion of the trial judge in rulings on admissibility of evidence of the instant character.” In Aetna Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn., v. Licking Valley Milling Co., 19 F. 2d 177, C.A.6, cert. den. 275 U.S. 541, 48 S.Ct. 37, 72 L.Ed. 415, the manager of the claimed insured was permitted to testify that one Bennett, after a telephone conversation with Stone, agent of the insurer, said that the insurance was in effect. See also, Tuckerman v. United States, 2…
• Lumbermen's Mut. Ins. Co. v. Slide Rule & Scale Eng'g Co., 177 F.2d 305 (7th Cir. 1949)
  …2, 20 L.Ed. 617; Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Tatum, 5 Cir., 5 F. 2d 169; National Liberty Ins. Co. of America v. Milligan, 9 Cir., 10 F. 2d 483; Aetna Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn., v. Licking Valley Milling Co., 6 Cir., 19 F. 2d 177, certiorari denied, 275 U.S. 541, 48 S.Ct. 37, 72 L.Ed. 415; annotation 69 A.L.R. 559.” Whether Collins had actual authority to make the binding parol contracts for insurance is dependent, of course, upon the evidence. The findings of the District Court in that respect must be app…