United States v. William L. Kann, William L. Kann, Jr., Elise K. Goldman, Betty K. Wilson & Robert M. Kann, Additional, 333 F.2d 146 (3rd Cir. 1964).
Search
United States v. William L. Kann, William L. Kann, Jr., Elise K. Goldman, Betty K. Wilson & Robert M. Kann, Additional, 333 F.2d 146 (3rd Cir. 1964). Book View Copy Cite
UNITED STATES of America, Appellant,
v.
William L. KANN Et Al., William L. Kann, Jr., Elise K. Goldman, Betty K. Wilson and Robert M. Kann, Additional Defendants
14092.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Apr 10, 1964.
333 F.2d 146
John B. Jones, Jr., and Joseph Kovner, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C. (Louis F. Oberdorfer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, Michael A. Mulroney, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., Joseph S. Ammerman and Gustave Diamond, U. S. Attys., Thomas J. Shannon, Asst. U. S. Atty., on the brief), for appellant., Alexander Black, Pittsburgh, Pa. (Buchanan, Ingersoll, Rodewald, Kyle & Buerger, Pittsburgh, Pa., Vincent V. R. Booth, Boston, Mass., Edwin M. Jones, Edmund R. Harnedy, New York City, T. G. Thornbury, Fort Wayne, Ind., on the brief), for appellees New England Mut. Life Ins. Co., New York Life Ins. Co. and Lincoln Nat. Life Ins. Co., Thomas Lewis Jones, White, Jones & Gregg, formerly White & Jones, Pittsburgh, Pa. (Richard C. Witt, Pittsburgh, Pa., Eugene T. O’Neill, Stuart A. McCarthy, Marshall F. Denenholz, Robert A. Kagan, New York City, on the brief), for appellee Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of the United States., Gilbert J. Helwig, Pittsburgh, Pa. (J. Tomlinson Fort, Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay, Pittsburgh, Pa., Harry Fisher, Newark, N. J., E. H. McVitty, Toronto, Canada, Gerald M. Swanstrom, Milwaukee, Wis., on the brief), for appellees Manufacturers Life Ins. Co., Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co. and Prudential Ins. Co. of America., K. Martin Worthy, Glenn L. Archer, Jr., Hamel, Morgan, Park & Saunders, Washington, D. C., for Life Insurance Ass’n of America, amicus curiae.
Biggs, McLaughlin, Kalodner, Staley, Hastie, Ganey, Smith.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published
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.