Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Clark
| Decision Date | 03 August 1927 |
| Docket Number | 20448. |
| Citation | 144 Wash. 520,258 P. 35 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | FIDELITY & DEPOSIT CO. OF MARYLAND v. CLARK et ux. |
Department 1.
Appeal from Superior Court, Spokane County; Jos. B. Lindsley, Judge.
Action by the Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland against Harry C. Clark and against the community composed of Harry C. Clark and wife. From a judgment in favor of the community dismissing the action, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Williams & Cornelius, of Spokane, for appellant.
Don. F Kizer, of Spokane, for respondents.
The Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland, a corporation, was surety on the statutory bond of Harry C. Clark as sheriff. While acting as sheriff, Clark became responsible for official torts on account of which he and the surety company were sued. Judgment was obtained against them in one case which the surety company paid and in another case the surety company necessarily incurred expenses in successfully defending against the suit. The present action was brought by the surety company against Clark and the community composed of him and his wife, to recover judgment in the amount of the judgment it had been compelled to pay in the one case and also for the amount of expenses it incurred in the other suit. To the complaint, the community, consisting of Clark and his wife, appearing separately, interposed a general demurrer which was sustained by the court. The plaintiff refusing to further plead, has appealed from a judgment in favor of the community dismissing the action.
The complaint in the case alleged that, in Clark's written application to the surety company to become surety on his official bond, he agreed to indemnify the surety company against all loss, liability, damages, and expenses which the company might sustain by reason of its executing the bond and, upon this theory of its being an action on an express contract, it is sought by the appellants to distinguish this case from our former ones holding that the community is not responsible for the tort of an officer, such as a sheriff. But in our opinion the argument is unsound. Clark's express agreement, so far as it relates to this case, is of no higher order than would have been his implied promise to the same effect without the written agreement. The bond furnished by the appellant as surety was an official bond, the statute required it, and the payment of liability or necessary expenses incurred because of it by the surety on account of official torts of the principal does not give to the surety any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Poe v. Seaborn 21 930
...out of commnit y property, she may, suing alone, enjoin collection of his separate debt out of community property. Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Clark, 144 Wash. 520, 258 P. 35. She may prevent his making substantial gifts out of community property without her consent. Parker v. Parker, 121 Was......
-
Great American Indemnity Co. v. Garrison
...487; Annotation, 12 A.L.R. 837; Day v. Henry, 81 Wash. 61, 142 P. 439; Bice v. Brown, 98 Wash. 416, 167 P. 1097; Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Clark, 144 Wash. 520, 258 P. 35. The reasoning underlying the rule is that a person, elected to a public office, necessarily, must individually perform ......
-
Meck v. Cavanaugh
... ... Wilkinson, 114 Wash. 89, ... 194 P. 582, 12 A. L. R. 833; Fidelity & Deposit Co. v ... Clark, 144 Wash. 520, 258 P. 35. Each of those ... ...
-
Kilcup v. McManus
...such as Kies v. Wilkinson, 114 Wash. 89, 194 P. 582, 12 A.L.R. 883 (also see 101 Wash. 340, 172 P. 351), and Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Clark, 144 Wash. 520, 258 P. 35, down to Beakley v. City of Bremerton, 5 Wash.2d 670, 105 P.2d 40, in granting to a public official's community ......