United States v. William L. Kann, William L. Kann, Jr., Elise K. Goldman, Betty K. Wilson and Robert M. Kann, Additional
333 F.2d 146
3rd Cir.
1964
Check Treatment
PER CURIAM.

This appeal presents the same issues as those decided today in United States v. Sullivan, 333 F.2d 100, and United States v. Wilson, Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company, Appellant, 333 F.2d 137, i. e., issues relating to automatic premium loans and policy loans. We resolve these issues here as we did in the eases just cited.

It is unnecessary to set out the facts of the instant appeal for they appear sufficiently in the opinion of the court below, reported at 203 F.Supp. 1 (1962), and in the “Tabulation of Information re Life Insurance Policies” which is appended to the Sullivan opinion and which is incorporated in this opinion by reference. It must be borne in mind that those portions of the “Tabulation” which are enclosed by parentheses cannot be found in the records of the respective eases. As with United States v. Sullivan, supra, however, sufficient facts appear of record in the instant case to make possible a final disposition of the present controversy.

For the reasons set forth in the Sullivan and Massachusetts Mutual opinions, the judgment is correct and consequently will be affirmed.

HASTIE, J., dissents for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in United States v. Sullivan, 333 F.2d 121.