American Surety Co. of New York v. Steffen
| Decision Date | 06 May 1919 |
| Docket Number | No. 15810.,15810. |
| Citation | 214 S.W. 806 |
| Parties | AMERICAN SURETY CO. OF NEW YORK v. STEFFEN et al. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Action by the American. Surety Company of New York against C. J. Steffen and others. To review judgment for plaintiff, defendants, except the Hurst Automatic Switch & Signal Company, as to which plaintiff dismissed, bring error. Affirmed.
W. W. Cohick, of St. Louis, for plaintiffs in error.
J. D. & L. C. Johnson and Eustace C. Wheeler, all of St. Louis, for defendant in error.
This is an action upon a contract of indemnity executed by the defendants C. J. Steffen and Charles M. Hurst in favor of plaintiff, a foreign corporation authorized to transact business in this state as a surety or bonding company. The suit was instituted against the above-mentioned defendants and the Hurst Automatic Switch & Signal Company, a corporation, but plaintiff dismissed as to the last-named defendant.
The record shows that prior to July 28, 1914, one William R. Faribault instituted suit against the Hurst Automatic Switch & Signal Company before a justice of the peace in the city of St. Louis, where he obtained a judgment against said corporation for the sum of $412.50. Thereupon the Hurst Automatic Switch & Signal Company prosecuted an appeal from that judgment to the circuit court of said city, and upon that appeal plaintiff herein, the American Surety Company of New York, at the instance and request of these defendants, Steffen and Hurst, signed the appeal bond as surety on or about July 28, 1914, on which day these defendants executed to plaintiff the contract of indemnity sued upon in the present action. By that contract these defendants agreed to indemnify plaintiff and save it harmless from and against every claim, demand, liability, cost, etc., on said appeal bond, and agreed to "place the surety [plaintiff] in funds to meet the same" before it should be required to make any payment, etc.
In the Faribault Case the judgment of the justice of the peace was subsequently affirmed in the circuit court; judgment being rendered there against the Hurst Automatic Switch & Signal Company and likewise against this plaintiff as surety upon the appeal bond. The fact is, as appears from our own records, that the said judgment was affirmed for failure of the Hurst Automatic Switch & Signal Company to appear and prosecute its appeal in the circuit court. Subsequently the Automatic Switch & Signal Company filed a motion to set aside the affirmance of the judgment, and, upon this motion being overruled, appealed to this court, and, as our records show, the judgment of the circuit court therein was subsequently affirmed by this court. See Faribault v. Hurst Automatic Switch & Signal Co., 199 S. W. 1033. It appears that upon application of counsel representing the Hurst Automatic Switch & Signal Company the said appeal to this court in the Faribault Case was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maryland Cas. Co. v. Spitcaufsky
... ... Transit Co., 329 Mo. 793, 46 S.W.2d 817; Wair v ... American Car & Foundry Co., 285 S.W. 155. (3) The court ... erred in giving ... Guarantee & Accident Co., 97 Mo.App. 623; National ... Surety Co. v. Roth, 232 S.W. 737; Jordan v ... Daniels, 224 Mo.App. 749, 27 ... v. Hinton, 130 ... S.W.2d 235; American Surety Co. v. Steffen, 214 S.W ... 806; Cross v. Williams, 72 Mo. 577; Strickland ... ...
-
State ex rel. Allison v. Buford
...the judgment. State ex rel. v. Goldstein, 209 Mo.App. 102, 237 S.W. 814; Shultz v. Jones, 223 Mo.App. 142, 9 S.W.2d 251; American Surety Co. v. Steffen, 214 S.W. 806. (6) The bond is not in the form required by the statute is so conditioned as not to protect relators in realizing on their j......
-
Steffen v. American Surety Co. of New York
...Surety Company of New York. From a judgment for defendant on the sustaining of, demurrer, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed. See, also, 214 S. W. 806. W. W. Cohick, of St. Louis, for J. D. & L. C. Johnson, of St. Louis, for respondent. BARNES, J. This suit was instituted in the circuit court of t......