Case Name: GAFFNEY v. UNITED STATES
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1937-05-06
Citations: 89 F.2d 996
Docket Number: No. 6073
Parties: GAFFNEY v. UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 89
Pages: 996–996

Head Matter:
GAFFNEY v. UNITED STATES.
No. 6073.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
May 6, 1937.
THOMPSON, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
John Duggan, Jr., Morris F. Cohen, and Thomas E. Thornton, all of Pittsburgh, Pa. (John Duggan, Jr., of Pittsburgh, Pa., of counsel), for appellant.
Julius C. Martin, Director, Bureau of War Risk Litigation, of Washington, D. C. , Wilbur C. Pickett, Sp. Asst. to the Atty. Gen., Keith L. Seegmiller, Atty., Department of Justice, of Washington, D. C., Charles F. Uhl, U. S. Atty., and Stanley Granger, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Pittsburgh, Pa., and John S. Powers, Sp. Atty., Department of Justice, of Buffalo, N. Y, for the United States.
Before BUFFINGTON, DAVIS, and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge:
In this case of war risk insurance the court granted a compulsory nonsuit and on its refusal to take off the same, the plaintiff on the same day excepted, his exception was noted and sealed by the trial judge. The court having thereafter entered judgment, plaintiff filed his assignment of error, alleging the court erred in entering a nonsuit and refusing to take it off, whereupon his appeal was allowed by the trial judge. Thereupon the appeal was docketed in this court and a citation duly issued. All these steps were taken during the current term. Subsequent to the term the trial judge ordered the testimony "filed and to become a part of the record," and because this order was not made during the term, the government moves to dismiss the appeal.
In view of the fact that exception was taken and bill sealed by the judge, assignments filed and appeal allowed during the term, the certificate and return of the testimony was rather a clerical than a judicial matter. The motion to dismiss is, therefore, denied.
After a careful study of the proofs, we have reached the conclusion the case was one for a jury to pass upon, and the judgment must be reversed. As it goes back for retrial, we refrain from discussing the evidence.