James Clark McReynolds

“ Indeed, the veteran made payments when in fact entitled to receive monthly benefits for total disability. If the converted policy had been allowed finally to lapse because of nonpayment of premiums, the agreement between the parties would have been fully complied with. Nevertheless the proper admission is that under such circumstances there could have been a recovery on the original policy, upon actual surrender of the expired policy. The government now has possession of the canceled converted policy and is in no worse position than it would be in the supposed circumstances. ”

“ Also: 'The Government, of course, does not question the right of a veteran who has converted his term insurance to sue on his prior policy, even if he has allowed the converted policy to lapse, provided he surrenders the converted policy.' The suggested construction of the statute is too narrow. It would deprive veterans of a right which we think Congress intended to confer. ”

“ United States (D.C.) 36 F. (2d) 804; Franks v. United States (D.C.) 43 F. (2d) 455; United States v. Golden (C.C.A.) 34 F. (2d) 367; United States v. Acker (C.C.A.) 35 F. (2d) 646; United States v. Schweppe (C.C.A.) 38 F. (2d) 595; Woolfolk v. United States (C.C.A.) 44 F. (2d) 701; Crawford v. United States (C.C.A.) 40 F. (2d) 199; United States v. ”