Barone v. Williams
199 F.2d 189
D.C. Cir.
1952
Check Treatment

*2 vinces us there was substantial to and Greene Messrs. Claude L. Dawson support the verdict. could reason The C., Furman, D. Washington, Chandler ably as follows: Reuben have concluded appellee Harold B. Williams. apprehensive, high-strung was an individual Irelan, Atty., Charles M. U. Messrs. S. who took unusual care of himself. He Howard, Atty., Joseph M. and Asst. U. S. practically all his life with Mrs. Ben lived n entered appearances United Williams, aunt, an after his raised him who of America. .States death when a small child. mother’s he was and Before PROCTOR Williams, Appellee Harold who also was EAHY, Judges. Circuit home, raised in the same had been ill and unable to work for much of his life. For FAHY, Judge. prior his own illness this reason Reuben to Williams, a veteran of World Reuben go J. had wanted his insurance to to Harold. II, and while in the service took out 'War hospitalized dur several times kept in a National Service thereafter force from which he ing course of illness policy in the amount Life Insurance kidneys re In of his was died. May Harold B. $10,000. to Prior kidney in the other moved and Williams, plaintiff below and half-brother be Barone affected. Reuben, under.this private duty during nurse his was his May policy. On Reuben executed March, 1946, hospitalization in and there beneficiary, change designating in Katie after she nursed him in the home of Mrs. Ludwig, aunt, appellee, an who is Reuben’s March, 1947, Ben In Williams. Barone, appellant, in the again hospital Juanita August $5,000 each. On .amount Upon discharge his nurse. Reu time change, still another Reuben executed ben went to the home of designating time Barone as by appellant. Juanita while also was nursed beneficiary. Ludwig’s was Mrs. executed change beneficiary. first Appellee brought He had re Harold B. Williams quested possessions against gather Court action indicating together, recover the amount of the desire to United States complaint alleged Appel- turn to the home of Mrs. policy. Williams. may persons having manner as court All or reasonable (1924), claiming have an in such in- direct. Stat. amended, may 38 U.S.C.A. 445. be made to such surance suit, appearance was entered in and such as are not inhabitants Ludwig; below for Mrs. default found within the district of or against was entered her. brought may brought suit personal- be served order of the court to events to be related 2. occurred Jy b; publication Orleans, such other Louisiana. in New evi- prior disclosed circumstances for some lant Barone knew time surround- suffering from dence of the conditions Reuben’s death cannot, its parties, ings and could recover. an incurable cancer sense, applied legal be defined and Beginning hospitalization *3 accurate, present an March, case so 1946, narcotics one of an- for the determination pain. was evidence measure to relieve his There 127, Nailor, Conley change in v. that a few after last weeks him con- beneficiary was difficult for 133 112].” it [6 off, verse, he no his mind would wander Moore, 1897, App.D.C. 10 anything, to know did not seem 46, dismissed, 1897, 939, 42 L.Ed. times, talking about at what See, also, 17 recollection minute of he had said what Influence, just previously, pass out in the and 'would Second, up Appellant, relying regain of a then midst conversation and 2, supra) on Louisiana n. as to the (see law Appellant was authorized to consciousness. proof, argues burden of that fraud must be dur- give and did fact Reuben narcotics prepon established more than a mere period. There ing this was evidence of the evidence.3 But it was derance her thought, encouragement, appellant’s request own court in badly by that was treated jury preponderance of structed the a that visiting she dissuaded an aunt from him. evidence was needed to establish appellant approxi- turned over complain that influence. She cannot $2200, mately representing a considerable 51, Fed.R.Civ.P., this 28 was done. Rule liquid part of assets. This not U.S.C.A. payment of debt. almost upon relying Again Louisiana always nearby when relatives Reuben’s appellant says proof law of undue in visited him. place of fluence is limited to the time and From this and other evidence alleged to have resulted from such act reasonably jury honestly could have argument predicated is concluded that exercised such Article Louisiana Annotated- Statutes influence as to make voidable the interpretations (1945),4 Civil Code need beneficiaries. by Louisiana courts. Article thereof is this not have reached conclusion. The chapter Code part conflicting evidence was and the capacity necessary disposing, lates to could have absolved But receiving gifts of inter vivos and causa decision for them and we must not Nominally it to exclusion mortis. relates it, it resting as disturb does evidence, indicate of but Louisiana courts adequate support which affords ul principle of rule is substantive McCartney timate inference drawn. See so, law. control.. If Louisiana law would Holmquist, 1939, v. 106 seq. Beale, Laws, of 1599 et See 3 Conflict 126 A.L.R. v. F.2d Sorrels Restatement, Laws, of (1935); Conflict Alexander, 1944, U.S.App.D.C. seq. Assuming arguendo that 699 et Article F.2d substantive and therefore would 1492is influence, too, nearly gift al- inter “Undue is trol if the case involved vivos mortis, case,5 Siz- of from ways a matter inference facts or were a will causa requirements proof Annotated-Civ- 3. As to the Louisiana Statutes jurisdiction, (1945). The Louisiana see Lockwood Revised fraud il Code repeal pro- Christakos, v. did not Statutes Annotations to Louisiana Motor See 5 Public Serv vision. (Dart, 1951). ice Jersey, Oil Standard Co. of New Statutes p. 99 F.2d Schlumbrecht, 5. Succession Zerega Percival, disposi- “Proof is admitted of La. through having hatred, La.Ann. 15 So. 476. A con- been made tions captation.” trary anger, suggestion be drawn from Article conclusion Sizeler, 1930, quoted approval eler So. We lead- Boyse Rossborough, ing English indicates that the Civil Code rules said, gifts 2, 47, 48, do inter and causa mortis Ho.L.Cas. vivos where it is ' apply con- policies.6 to life insurance is, however, extremely It flicting authority been cited Louisiana has difficult what tO' the abstract state proof of undue influence effect that acts will constitute undue influence ii) designation of an insurance questions sufficient nature. place designa- limited to the time and say, allowing a fair latitude Accordingly tion. we find no error in construction, they range them- must latitude of allowed on the issue.7 selves under one heads or other these *4 —coercion or fraud. contended it was error Third. It is Since instruct on coercion counsel conceded that issue, con undue duress because counsel for influence ceded sole trial might that undue influence was the well have so limited event, analytical nicety issue such instructions instructions. But in this respect inapposite. were The concession referred not essential fairness whole, especially made broader as but the instructions instructions as Fraud, do not reversible those advan- constitute error. broader terms did deceit, influence, coercion, duress, plaintiff. Upon tage undue a review complaint. alleged in the need evidence and the relation were We of the instructions ordinarily thereto, prejudicial which oc- not detail the distinctions we think error be drawn between them.8 Fraud curred. we well think was issue, generically prized phrased in though defined the court as species and varying language, of undue influence. Fraud was whether both, deceit were to describe the each used so influenced influence, Undue duress coercion and affected destroy agency defined identical practically so to be his free sense Furthermore, application their the case. undue influence. not make the burden instructions did points We have examined other raised plaintiff lighter than it have been would and find them not to be meritorious. they only been in terms undue phrased influence. (dissent- Judge early pointed This court out connection ing). validity “great with the of will the diffi culty, possible, I if it at all mark cannot find record * the al- my which brethren find supporting clearness distinction between ** must, there- legation and actual of undue I influence fraud.” fore, Moore, App.D.C. judgment. from the Barbour v. 535.9 dissent Succession, 45-46; Jones, 1907, pages Duckett, at 1943, Duckett 120 La. Klumpp Fontenot, 1929, 527. So. La.App. 27, Succession Am.Jur., In- 8. See Yeates, So.2d fluence, §§ Fraud seq., particularly Deceit, § et' §§ Annotated-Re- See Louisiana Statutes. 22: vised Statutes of Title prior appeal 9. This was a same reported (a) Nothing in Priebe & later was Sons United supra. States, Certain cited opinion parts App.D.C. and cases in 4 92 L.Ed. there cited disapproved Campbell contrary. Porter, is' to the page rule in 478 at For the District of U.S. parts concerning obtains lati- but Columbia which those pertinent tude of see here. Moore, supra,