Opposition Brief — Jamaica Time Petroleum, Inc. v. Federal Insurance

| nn Claes Ge

ee | pn Pe ot US

a JAN 3 1957

SUPREME COURT OF Tk THE UNTED STATES

OCTOBER TERM, 1966 OF ,

No.832 ~

JAMAICA TIME PETROLEUM, ~— lS

+ Mh. Petitioner, < | a «Ses

ee | |

FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

- Respondent. © °

ON Perrrion ror Writ oF CERTIORARI TO'THE UNrrep STATES

Court or APPEALS FOR THE TENTH ‘CIRCUIT

BRIEF. FOR RESPONDENT IN OPPOSITION _

Martin J. PURCELL : :

° . 1700 Bryant Building

' Kansas City, Missouri 64106,

LAWRENCE ‘WEIGAND .

830 First National Bank Building

Wichita, Kansas 67202 | bee

tie ati! Attorneys for Respondent . ~~ =~

Associate Counsel; Se a ears

? WitiraM A. ‘RunNDLE, JR.

1700 Bryant Building <>

Kansas City, Missouri 64106.

Byron BRAINERD - i

+830 First National Bank Building Scare a

Wichita, Kansas 67202 Se RGN Se ato dae gee er oe

Of Counsel: | c | cast

~ Morrison, HEcker, Cozap,& Morrison lees “<j

_WEtcanp, KURFMAN, BRAINERD, HARRIS. & KAUFMAN

x Se Mo. 64106, HArrison 1-8080

¥. f yee : : a @. ry

*}

| Reasons for Denying the’ Writ—- .

9

Jurisdiction dee a 7 ree in ener 1

Statement of the Case’. TN AT Ssiiaiis

I. The Payment of -$1,000.00 to the Mother. of the -

“Witness Conn Was Not a Witness Fee and Was ~

for Information Only No Contingent Either upon

the Testimony of Co in Court nor upon the

Outcome of the Citigetioe 8

_ II. The Issué of Adverse Pre-Trial Publicity Is Not ©

Supported ‘by the Record and Not Raised in the -

. Courts Below and May Nof Be Raised ered dnionee 12

IIE secsccastssessoneaseunicccelabbcdinmamtidbetiees tae uke, ieee i

TABLE OF Cases ;

Blackburn v. Alabama, 361 U.S: 199 ........: Te. :.#

_. ' Brotwn Shoe Company v. U. S., 370 U.S, 294 (1962), nie

_ Ellis v. Dixony349 U.S. 458 (1955) ........ smte 12

Helvering v: Minnesota Tea’ Co,, 296 U.S. 378 ( 1995) 12

Hyde wv. Shine, 199 U.S: 62 (1904) .. a

International Shoe Company v. sneboheciaie 326 U. S.

310, ¢1945) ) ‘8

Ipwan v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717 . hin piiheenicaiien

Kinsella 'v. U..S., $61-U.S. 234 2 Noone eA oe

Rice v. Stoux City Memorial Park, waciaiba: 349 US. eid

| fe Re CT EN Tes? i ee OK DOL a

.'; Stangiag Mansos «Powe, 196, Kan. 253, 411 P.2d 694

(1966), cert. denied 17 L.Ed.2d 64 (1966) aw Seniinons: «

© Ullman. v. US S.,350U.S,422 (1956) eee 9

_ United States y. Bryan, 339 US. 323 OD ak: ey a -

Ms es E

STATUTES o .

pene Court Ree ee ims

| PeeTitle 8, U.S.C, $1254 (1): npcccnencereee en 1,2

J

=

o

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER TERM, 1966

No. 832

"JAMAICA TIME PETROLEUM, INC:

oe, _ Petitionér,-. | :

| FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a

Pr : Respondent.

ee 2

- ON PETITION For Writ oF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES

Court oF. APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

a

_ BRIEF FOR ‘RESPONDENT IN OPPOSITION

; sn ae

JURISDICTION

_ Jurisdiction is contended for by Petitioner under Title

28 U.S.C. §1254(1), but granting of the Writ is discretion-. _

_ ary with the Court and not a matter of right’ Hyde v.

Shine, 199 U.S. 62 (1904); Supreme Court. Rule 19(1).

Inquiry as to jurisdiction is appropriate in every case.

Brown Shoe Company v. U. S.; 370 U.S. 294 (1962). |.

e:

“Respondent submits that jurisdiction as granted by 28°

of Supreme Court Rule-19, which provides i in part: -

ree: review on writ of certiérari is not a matter of .

right, but of sound judicial discretion, and will be.

»

‘US.C. §1254(1) is to be exercised within the framework .—

granted only where there are special and important .

reasons therefor. . ..” (Emphasis oo

There is no showing here of a “special” or “important”

3 reason. invocational of jurisdiction. This was; and re-

mains, a private dispute between private corporate parties -

concerning a private matter. in which there is no public

interest. Neither is there presented by the Petitioner in

within the jurisdiction of this Court.

In dismissing the Writ in Rice v. Sioux City Meviaitel

Park Cemetery, 349 U.S. 70 (1955), Mr. ‘Justice Frank- -

“ furter stated, 349 U.S. at 73: :

“This Rule [Rule 19], formulatéa 30 years ago,

embodies the criteria, déveloped ever since the Evarts

- its jurisdictional claim any reasons characteristic @f those

contained in Rule 19(1)(a) and (b) to bring tesge casé

“Act of 1891, by which the Court determines whether.

a particular case merits consideration, with due regard’

oe the- proper functioning of the limited reviewing ;

power to which ‘this Court is confined, decisively re-.

' stricted through the creation of the intermediate

Courts of. Appeals and more largely ee by the

Judiciary Act of 1925. . Tia at ae

ai? .

~ and — 349 U:S. at 74:

. But this Court does not sit to mE P an

interest in such issues. Nor does it sit for the benefit

- of the particular litigants. .

Taft 1 in an earlier case):

Ng

and further, 349 U.S. at 79. (quoting Mr. ‘Chief Saustice

, fF . 5

A 2d

se . oe .

~ ;

.

he 7s - > | Pe 3 Ae

b. .

: it is ‘very: important that we be consistent in not

v= Wide at the writ of certiorari.except in cases involv-

‘ing principles the settlement. of which is of impor- °

tance to. the me, as a from that of the .

parties, . . ; |

» STATEMENT OF THE CASE | <8

Being of the opinion that Petitioner’s (Plaintiff and

Appellant below) Statement presents some inaccuracies

- and only a portion of the facts necessary to a complete

understanding of the case by the Court, , Respondent here- ;

inafter sets forth a supplemental statement.

The corporate Petitioner, Jamaica Time Petroleum,

_ Inc., was formed in 1938 (R. 53) or- 1959 (R. 78) as a

“closed corporation” (R. 78) with an issue of one thousand

>

' shares of stéck, nine hundred shares of which’ were owned .'

by Rudolph R. Greenbaum and his wife (R. 53). Aside

\from the Greenbaums there were only two other stockhold-

ers’ (R. 53). This was still the situation .as of April. 12,

1962 (R. 53), the date of the destruction of the aircraft:

_ in question, The Petitioner corporation was specifically

formed to acquire and explore an oil and gas concession.

-on the Island of Jamaica (R. 53, 79). This did not prove

to be a successful operation (R. 53, 79) and the concessiori’

... expired in 1963’ (R. 53,80). The loss to Petitioner was

~ One Hundred Thirty-Eight Thousand Dollars ($138,000. 00)

.(R. 80) and was claimed as a loss in the amount of One

Hundred. Thirty-Five Thousand Three Hundred Forty-

and. 29/100 Dollars ($135,343.29) for’ income tax.

purposes in 1963 (R. 81). ‘In the ,meantime, Mr. Green-

_.. baum.and his wife had loaned the Petitioner corporation

One Hundred Fifty-Three Thousand Dollars ($153,000.00)

(R. 54). As of April 12; 1962, the date of the destruction

_. of the aircraft, the book value net worth of the Petitioner

was Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) (R. 34, 81). |

a.»

4

In the fall of 1961, Petitioner purchased a Lockheed —

- Lodestar airplane (R. 47, )) which is not the ‘airplane .

which is’ the subject of this litigation (R. 55). This air-

plane was.used in Petitioner’s business and at least as of

the time of trial was still owned _ and used by Petitioner

(R.. 55). However, early’ in 1962, Petitioner, ‘through.

Greenbaum, using money borrowed front his wife (R. 85), |

purchased a second Lockheed Lodestar airplane (R. 49), .

the aircraft with which we are concerried here and for :

which Petitioner had no operational use | whatsoever (R.

55, 84). .

Following’ the pirdhiie Greenbaum contacted an in-

surance brokerage firm at Wichita and requested a One

Hundred Thousand, Dollar ($100,000.00) insurance policy

on this airplane (R. 63-70; 156), and represented the worth

_ of the aircraft to be in that amount @. 157). Ordinarily

Petitioher’s insurance affairs were handled by another cor-

porate officer, Mr. Loux (R. 69), but this insurance ‘trans-

°

* action was handled by Greenbauit personally (R. 69). It

-was Greenbaum’s suggestion that a One Hundred Thou-

_ sand Dollar ($100,000.00) policy be obtained (R. 70, 87,

157) and this was accomplished by a Mr. Hill of .the

Wichita insurance firm through an aviation insurance man-

agement company,: Associated Aviation Underwriters (R.

88), who placed the coverage with Defendant. According

- to Associated Aviation Underwriters, Mr. Hill represented

.the purchase. price as One Hundred Thousand Dollars

- ($100,000.00) (R. 89, 90). The spare parts were triicked to

Wichita (R. 61) and separately insured for Thirty Thou-’

sand P rages ($30,000.00) (R. 62).

‘The aircraft in question (the second Lockheed Sede:

star): was purchased by Greenbaum with his wife’s — 7

money (R. 85) from Manufacturers Hanover Trust. in New

York (R. 27, 56) through an aircraft broker, one Mr. Wilmer

a:

D. Crawford of Teterboro, New Jersey, whose deposition

' was read into evidence by Petitioner (R. 26-34). The air-

‘plane was never seen nor inspected by Greenbaum prior

_- to purchase and its arrival in Wichita (R. 61). This air-

- craft originally had been manufactured for the military (R.

27) and was at least twenty years old at the time of pur-

chase by Greenbaum (R. 28). It “could be actually consid-

ered in the nature of an antique. It was an outmoded air-

plane and out of manufacture even to the point of spare.

parts now being somewhat of a problem for the airplane

since they are out of new manufacture” (R. 32). Nothing

' had been done to upgrade the pen since 1947 (R. 31) -

and it was obsolete (R. 32).

‘The aircraft was offered for sale together with a : large

quantity of spare parts (R. 31) as a package €R. 61) and

the entire package was purchased by Greenbaum for Thir-

_teen Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ‘($13,500.00 (R. 31,

61). Half of the purchase price should be allocated to the

airplane and half to the spare parts (R. 31). According to -

Mr. Bangiola, Greenbaum’s pilot, “at least seventy-five per-

- cent” of the spare parts, including two remanufactured en-' on

gines, were usable on-the first aircraft. (R.:92-93) purchased

by Petitioner and which Petitioner was still using at the

time of trial (R. 55), but Petitioner had no use for the

second airplane itself (R. 55, 84). It was Greenbaum’s fur-

ther testimony that the aircraft in question had “excellent

guidance gear and electronics” (R. 55) which he expected -

.. to install inhis first aircraft (R. 55-56) but it’ was his’ pilot’s

testimony that such an exchange: would be.a “waste of

money” (R. 94). It was the further testimony of the pilot

that the spare parts acquired in the purchase were worth °

_" Twenty-Five Thousand ‘Dollars ($25,000.00) (R. 95) or

Fourteen Thousand Dollars ($14,000.00) to Fifteen Thou-

sand Dollars ($15,000.00) (R. 96). It was the pilot’s idea to

a

co se we

7

keep.the spare parts and sell the airplane (R. 96) . Spare

‘parts for Lockheed Lodestars were: difficult to obtain at

that time (R. 93). Greenbaum denied that the aircraft - .

was offered by Petitioner for’ sale‘ generally (R. 62) but

he was contradicted in this by his pilot who stated that it

was placed in the hands of a broker for re-sale at a price

‘of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00) and that this.

_ was authorized by Greenbaum (R. 96), He was further

contradicted in this by his answer under oath’ to Respond-

ent’s: pre-trial interrogatories ‘wherein he had stated, “The

“aircraft was offered for sale” (R. 63-65).—A period of time

of one month elapsed between the arrival of the airplane |

in Wichita from New Jersey and its destruction on the night

of April. 12, 1962 (R, 96). During this period the aircraft

‘ was not used on company business and no removal of radio

equipment was attempted (R. 96).. The airplane - ‘merely.

remained parked in the general tie-down area. at the

-” Wichita Municipal Airport near the Municipal terminal

building (R. 96). Actual use of the airplane was never dis- .

" cussed between Greenbaum and his — (R. 97). It was*

just a matter of reselling it (R. 97). . hae

j A day or two before the aircraft. was destroyed it was

flown around the field for the first time since its arrival in

Wichita (R. 96) and engine trouble developed (R. 97). It

was landed and taken to a place in front of a hangar (R.

. 97) in a very deserted and dark area of the field (R. 98)

’ where it was destroyed the following night (R.. 97).

Greenbaum had been advised by the pilot as to the air-

craft’s location (R. 97), a fact that Greenbaum could not

“remember” at the. trial:(R. 72). On the night of the de-

struction the pilot was called to the scene and upon seeing, .

the. burning aircraft, so advised Greenbaum at his home

by telephone who responded only by asking if anyone was

hurt (R. 98). ° At no time on the night of the destruction

oo

Ce

7

or at any time later did Greenbaum visit the scene or view |

the airplane (R. 61, 99).

That the Respondent” odclucea sufficient ‘evidence of

the deliberate destruction of the aircraft was conceded by

Petitioner at page 8 of its Brief filed in the Court of Appeals,

which concession is recognized and accepted in the opihion

. of the Court of Appeals, Jamaica Time Petroleum, Inc. v..°

Federal Insurance Company, 366 F.2d 156 (1966). The

deliberate destruction’ was further confirmed by Captain °

Bevis of the Wichita Police Department (R. 112) and Eldon

A. Means, a consulting chemist (R. 115). It was the testi-

mony of one Rex Rudolph Conn (R. 115-154) that he was

engaged by one George Poulos, a “loéal hoodlum” or “un- —

> derworld character” (R. 105), in concert with one Eugene —

McCroskey, an ex-convict (R. 106), and one James.Dolan,

a known criminal (R. 106, 121); to destroy the airplane

(R. 120). This they accomplished by lighting a fuse pro-

truding from a satchel which they had placed under the

airplane (R. 121-122, 127-128). Subsequently McCroskey

- and Conn pleaded guilty to. the destruction “(R. 106) and

. Poulos was convicted of the same in the District Court of

Sedgwick County, Kansas, which conviction was affirmed

by the Supreme Court of Kansas.. State v. Poulos, 196

Kan. 253, 411 P.2d 694 (1966), cert. denied 17 L.Ed.2d 64

(1966). -Respondent offered to prove by the witness Conn

that George Poulos had been hired by Greenbaum to have

the aircraft destroyed for a sum of Twenty-Five Thousand

Dollars ($25,000.00) (R. 136) but was not permitted to do

so by the District Court (R. 123-127 ).

_ Petitioner’s assertion “Conn was paid $1, 000. 00 to tes-

tify” is not supported by the record. The record. does re-.

veal that during its investigation into the destruction, Re-

~ spondent offered to pay Conn’s mother the sum of One

Thousand Dollars. ($1,000.00) in the event Conn would give -

%

i

t

. 8

any information he had, silos toa solution of the aectanes .

tion of the aircraft (R. ‘117, 118); which ‘was eventually, f

done (R. 118). "Thereafter Conn was ‘asked to relate’ his*~. ;

information, to the Wichita police, which he did (R. 118)

and only thereafter was he asked to testify (R. 119). As |

late as forty-eight hours before Conn’s appearance as-4 wit-

ness he was again advised by counsel that he was under

no compulsion to testify (R. 153). That the District Judge

found nothing improper with. respect to the payment of -

. the money, in return for information is amply set forth in the,

‘record (R. 24-25, 127). In its opinion on this point

the Court of Appeals states, 366 F.2d at 158: “The offer and

‘payment of the reward were not contingent either on the

_ testimony of Conn in Court or on the outcome of any

Bhs cies 7 < Se

: REASONS FOR DENYING THE WRIT

I

The Payment of $1, 000.00 to the Mother of the Witness

Conn Was Not a Witness Fee and Was for Information

’ Only Not.Contingent Either upon the Testimony of .

Conn in Court nor upon the Outcome of the Litigation

‘While Respondent has no. quarrel with the law relative

to due process cited by Petitioner under’ Section I-@ of |

its Petition (p. 9) Respondent does respectfully submit that

the authorities therein cited have no application to this

case. International Shoe Company v. Washington, 326 °

U.S. 310 (1945) cited by Petitioner (p. 9) ‘treated with

. the application of. a process statute of the State of Wash-

ington toa foreign: corporation. The three cases

- cited at page 10 of the Petition (Kinsella v. U. S., 361 wea

234; Irwan v.. Dowd, 366 US. 717; Blackburn v. Alli

361 U.S. 199) are criminal cases. Such law is badly ap ap-

‘plicable to the case at bar.

va,

ww

*

en nt an ee ete eg Ne

=

..

i

9

- At. ‘Section I-B of its Petition (pp. 10-11) the Peti-

tioner apparently | asserts, ‘and would have this. Court he-

lieve, that. Witnesses may be compelled ‘to testify even ad-

versely to themselves and cites in support United States

v. Bryan, 339 U.S. 323 (1949), and Ullman v. U. S., 350

U.S. 422 (1956). These cases do not support the proposi-

tion contended for by Petitioner in that the Bryan case

‘ recognizes that witnesses do enjoy some €xemption: and”

privilege from testifying and the Ullman. case involves the’ :

’ privilege afforded by the Fifth Amendment. |

Petitioner claims that witnesses (presumably includ-

ing Conn in this instance) may be compelled to appear

and testify but even Petitioner must, recognize that here

it would be legally impossible to compel Rex Conn to testify

against himself with respect to his participation in the de-

struction of the aircraft in question. The fact is that-he

did -comply with Petitioner’s “Ditty to Testify” by volun-.

. tarily appearing in open -Court without inducement of any .

"kind (R. 117-119, 163) and submitted himself to‘criminal | -

prosecution (R. 119) thus lending further support to his

credibility.

Petitioner seeks to convince this Court that Conn -was

“paid to testify” and that he gave “perjured testimony” by. _

‘bald statements to this effect wholly unsupported by the

“Record, when the “fact is that the Record is replete with

‘testimony, findings and. judicial opinion to the’ contrary :

-(R. 24-25,.117-119, 127, 153). On this point the trial judge :

stated to Petitioner’s trial counsel (R. 127):

“ ; .. with’ respect to what counsel hes: done in this

case, I say’ to you very frankly that I see nothing

wrong with what in an effort to obtain knowledge of

this, of the, conduct which has so far been disclosed. to

me and I ‘say that to you because thére are so gt

tions of part of one of y briefs which you

withdraw and which I permi you to - ,

a %

ao this same respect ite Court ‘of Appeals for the ° Tenth

Circuit Stated; 366 F.3d at’ 158; oe

“The offer and payment of the en were not

contirigent either on the testimony of Conn in Sse

or on the outcome of any litigation. oe

Ow

_s ¢ hy aS

. When the insurer offered and paid. the re- .

| 2 it took a calculated risk’ of: —* usable om

believable information. Pitas

Under. Section I-C of the Pétition (p. 12) it is con-

; tended that the Writ should issue because of the “Effects

. &

‘ Of The Fayment Of Excessive Compensation To A Non-’

Expert. ‘itness.”. In purported ‘support of this proposi-

tion Petitioner lime numerous cases all of which involve -

contracts-with persons to estify in litigation. To prove

‘that no such contract: existed here and that Petitioner’s —

authorities are not in point, ‘Respondent respectfully, invites

the Court’s attention to the words of Judge Breitenstein

as contained ‘in the affirming opinion of the Court ‘of Ap- °

va for the Tenth Circuit in this case, 366, F.2d at. 158:

“The rule. that. a “rion-expert cannot enforce a .

_ promise to pay compensation for his testimony because

’ of the. invitation to perjury which would contravene

eo public policy is not pertinent here. We are not con- ° .

cerned with. any dispute over failure to pay. Ns eucal g.°

, mother Tectived the $1,000.00. ek

cc oe nee

r

a i

; fm event. This is a civil case.. We are not concerned’

‘A. ‘with decisions which deal with contingent fee agree-

ments to produce evidencé =, particular Persons

for crimes not yet; committed.

. The information given by Conn related to a

.

~ Whether or > aoe inafitientie sees fit to recognize ‘it the -.

- of aix possible: attack upon the withess Conn ‘must. be limited

. to (1). competency” under the Kansas. statutes, and (2) :

credibility. «

° “The Kansas Supreme Court, in one of the.. criminal ;

prosecutions which arose out of the destruction of’ this air-

plane, State of Kansas. v. Poules, 196 Kan. 253, 411 P,2d

694 (1966),- cert. denied 17 L.Ed.2d 64. (1966), in quoting Ss

‘portion of and construing K.S.A. 60-407 stated: ~

except as otherwise provided by statute ( »): every |

a | ae

“This section’ is the keystone. of ‘the entire system of :

- Rules of Evidence provided in Article 4 of the Code of

Givil Procedure... It abolishes all pre-existing dis-

qualifications and privileges of witnesses and wipes the ©

slate clean of all other exclusionary rules, leaving the

- one requirement for the admissibility . of evidence,

ee that of relevance. If.the. evidence’ is relevant to ae

- @ issue being investigated, the jury is: permitted to re-_ :

'_ ceive it, unless some other rule Daggers ‘or priv-

ilege, as announced in ‘Article r other -statutes,

causes the evidence to be excluded” (4 Vernon’s Kan-

_ . Sas Code of Civ. Proc., pp. 198, 199.). Under this .sec- -

tion, a witness is presumed to be competent to testify.

His incompetency, therefore, -must bé challenged and

the burden of establishing incompetency rests on the

challenger. (4 Vernon’ a Kansas Code of Civ. Proc.,

: p. 269. |

a

Conn’ s credibility as a witness was for the jury to i

< termine ander a proper iristruction, which appears jn the

Récord at page-167. As is pointed ‘out in the opinion. of

the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in this sph 366

pee F.2d at 158:

Me ees ome cect

“The question. of the credibility of Conn was for a jury

_ and was submitted to them under instructions which —

- are not here attacked and which ° we find — id

-

@

oy aL ee

II

‘The Isstie of Adverse Pre-Trial Publicity Ww Not |

Supported by the Record and Not Raised in the

_ Courts Below and May Not Be Raised Here

“In Section II of its Petition (p. 15) Petitioner claitns

for the first time ‘that it was precluded from a fair trial

_ by. adverse pré-trial publicity. Issuance of the Writ on |

_ those grounds should be denied for the ee enumer- -

. ated geasons: ~ oe ‘| — :

)

©

v Gi

1. The Record in this case. does: not contain any evi- |

dence of such pre-trial publicity. Pate, %

me 2. The. Record iny this case does not contain any a

. jection’ by Retifoner. to _ proceeding to trial :

Wichita; Kansas. -

ss ae ‘Site Wain in this ed Geb se conte, any chao

___ tion by Petitioner during the course of the trial to

ace 3

7 Proceeding further with the trial. . :

“= Petitioner’s Motion for a New Trial does not raise

He the issue of adverse publicity either prior to or dur-

__ ing the trial (R. 19). co

5. Petitioner did not raise the issue of prejudicial phe-

--trial publicity in its ndeipe the Court ot Appeels—.

_ for the Tenth Circuit.

In view of the above stated facts, Reaporident respect-

fully invokes the long standing rule of this Court that =.

Petitioner may not raise an issue now to its benefit not

previously raised in the Courts below. Ellis v. Dixon,

349 U.S. 458 (1955); Heiveting v. Minnesota Tea Co., 296

US. 378 (1935). .

+ \ ’ , : zt | ep . : z! F a _ \

es |

de ee |“ GONCLUSION |

| ee Respondent submits that.this ese is“and was a con- “

troversy of “fact” between two private corporations, not

~ involving a question of public importance, which was de-

cided by a jury in a ‘United States District Court adversely

to Petitioner and affirmed on appeal by the United States °

‘Gourt of Appeals for. the Tenth Circuit. The case ‘was .

. carefully tried arid reviewed by the District Court and

. _—_ extensively briefed for and reviewed. by the Court of Ap- |

eee peals. On the jury findings and the judicial reviews al-

ready had. Petitioner neither’ merits nor is entitled to ‘the

granting of a. Writ .of Certiorari and its Petition herein

. -Faises nothing further for review by this Court. ee

3 eee ‘Respectfully submitfed;

" ie ea “ . * Martin J: PURCELL

| ; ) 1700 Bryant. Building °

Kansas City, Missouri 64106.

tN. ¢ LaWRENCEWEIGAND -

12 é2 ee nn First Natienal Bank Building

| 7 : |.» Wichita, Kansas 67202" ee

; : ae: ta for Respondent _

—._——_—_—Associate Counsel: eT oe

~ <Witiram A. RunDLE, JR.

1700 Bryant Building

Kansas City, Missouri $4106 a

Byron BRAINERD er sa er

_-830 First National Bank Building sos

Wichita, Kansas 67202, . eae

Of Counsel: | » :———

Morrison, HECKER, Cozap & Moakison hee

WEIGAND, KURFMAN, samme Harris & KAUFMAN

es

“ie

ibe

‘ D>

8 : 7 F ar as ace bad $e : “ : ~

oo ak elke: re Office-Supreme Court, Us

oe ice ; ~e 2 2 Kl E, E D .

a Saat Oe crhrib none et

- PETITIONER'S REPLY BRIEF

No, 832 JOHN E Davis, CLERK

IN THE

"SUPREME ‘COURT OF. THE UNITED STATES

‘October FRM, 1966.

-

(JAMAICA TIME PETROLEUM, ING.,

eas tie aa wane

VS, © a a aos

FEDERAL INSURANCE GOMPANY,

«

_ Respondent.

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

TO THE

“UNITED STATES COURT-OF APPEALS

FOR THE’ TENTH CIRCUIT

o

_.PETITIONER'S piwik BRIEF

“M. LEWIS LEHMAN

By. PAUL: KALLMAN

Be oly eee nee ene ‘4307 ‘Crenshaw. Boglevard

Los Angeles, Calif, “90008

ASSOCIATE COUNSEL

RALPH R. FRANK

PAUL KALLMAN

9460 Wilshire Boulevard

Suite 427 © ee e)

Beverly Hills, California

Attorneys for Petitioner.

} Attorneys for Petitioner 0

| tH

Meee Cag . pte ee

Aw... SUBJECT INDEX Ae te

ee _ RESPONDENT'S JURISDICTIONAL, ay

ce ARGUMENT tee Ee game

3° TL, Reolonds FACTUAL - ee

“9° “ARGUMENT =: ae

IIL RESPONDENT'S LEGAL ( : ee ee

ARGUMENT =| eee!

“IV. CONCLUSION oe ee

| TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED :

es : | Cases. ‘

| Blackburn v, - Alabama, 361 VU: S, 199, oe

aL. Ed, 24/243, 80 S, Ct.. nae ae _.

Jamaica Time aaiebonal v. Pidaeat.

Insurance Company, joe F. 2d 156. be 8°

State ex rel Spillman v. | Ist Bank of. ae ;

Dickerson, 114 Neb. 423, | Ne

207 N. W.: 674, 45.A, LR. ‘1418 2% be: F

Constitution

. _ United idles iniciitnatinn: Ape =

: .14th Amendment . 3 AS AE oF

| Rules e )

+ Mee OR a

“ale 19(2)0) ee Eee eae

tk ae 2 Jeena e-:-

24