Case Name: UNITED STATES, Appellant, v. Henry A. JENSEN, Appellee; UNITED STATES, Appellant, v. Kenneth E. BANKS, Appellee; UNITED STATES, Appellant, v. Dewey R. SALISBURY, as Administrator of the Estate of Chester L. Salisbury, Deceased, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1929-11-12
Citations: 36 F.2d 47
Docket Number: Nos. 5917, 5923, 5942
Parties: UNITED STATES, Appellant, v. Henry A. JENSEN, Appellee. UNITED STATES, Appellant, v. Kenneth E. BANKS, Appellee. UNITED STATES, Appellant, v. Dewey R. SALISBURY, as Administrator of the Estate of Chester L. Salisbury, Deceased, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 36
Pages: 47–47

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES, Appellant, v. Henry A. JENSEN, Appellee. UNITED STATES, Appellant, v. Kenneth E. BANKS, Appellee. UNITED STATES, Appellant, v. Dewey R. SALISBURY, as Administrator of the Estate of Chester L. Salisbury, Deceased, Appellee.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
November 12, 1929.
Rehearing Denied December 17, 1929.
Nos. 5917, 5923, 5942.
Cases Nos. 5917 and 5923:
Case No. 5942:
In Cases Nos. 5917 and 5923:
George Neuner, U. S. Atty., and Francis E. Marsh, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Portland, Or., and William Wolff Smith, Gen. Counsel, J. O’C. Roberts, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and James T. Brady and C. L. Dawson, Attys., U. S. Veterans’ Bureau, all of Washington, D. C., for the United States.
B. A. Green, of Portland, Or., and Alvin Gerlack, of San Francisco, Cal., for appellees.
In Case No. 5942:
Geo. J. Hatfield, U. S. Atty., of San Francisco, Cal., and William Wolff Smith, Gen. Counsel, J. O’C. Roberts, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and James T. Brady and C. L. Dawson, Attys., U. S. Veterans’ Bureau, all of. Washington, D. C., for the United States.
Richard O’Connor and James B. O’Connor, both of San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.
Before RUDKIN, DIETRICH, and WILBUR, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
WILBUR, Circuit Judge.
The sole question presented by the appeals in these three actions, brought upon converted war risk insurance policies, is whether or not these policies beeame incontestable where a total loss occurred within six months after the issuance of the new policy. This question is answered in the negative in the opinion this day rendered in James W. Jordan v. United States of America, 36 F. (2d) 43.
Judgments reversed.