Court Opinion

ID: 9446048
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:44:49.2798+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:30.320495
License: Public Domain

TUTTLE, Circuit Judge
(dissenting in part).
I respectfully dissent. It seems clear to me that no appellate court could legally hold that this judgment was not so factually supported as to withstand the clearly erroneous test. On the face of the written documents themselves the Government proved a prima facie case, since they showed that each veteran had signed a deed to Ehrlich prior to his own acquisition of the property from the Government.
As to the legal point respecting the duty of the Government to offer restitution, I think this Court is bound by the cited decisión of the Supreme Court. The harshness of the rule, which is not of our making, does not, it seems to me, warrant our not following it.