Glaspey v. Drolet
| Decision Date | 16 December 1940 |
| Docket Number | 28059. |
| Citation | 6 Wn.2d 610,108 P.2d 375 |
| Parties | GLASPEY et ux. v. DROLET et al. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 1.
Action by Frank Glaspey and Anna Glaspey, husband and wife, against Joseph O. Drolet and others and the National Surety Corporation, to recover damages for false arrest and assault. Judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiffs against defendant Drolet and others, and from that part of the judgment which dismissed with prejudice the action against the National Surety Corporation, plaintiffs appeal.
Affirmed.
Appeal from Superior Court, Yakima County; Robert J. Willis, judge.
D. V Morthland and Lane Morthland, both of Yakima, for appellants.
Cheney & Hutcheson and John Gavin, all of Yakima, for respondent.
This action was brought to recover damages for false arrest and assault. The parties defendant, named in the amended complaint which will be referred to as the complaint, were Jos. O. Drolet, John L. Stevens, N.E. Palmer, J. O. Webster and F. W. Van Arsdol, and the National Surety Corporation. The trial was to the court and a jury, and a verdict was returned in favor of the plaintiffs and against defendants Drolet, Palmer, and Van Arsdol, in the sum of $1,050, and against Webster, in the sum of $350. A judgment was entered in accordance with the verdict, which contained the provision that, upon the satisfaction of the 'judgment of $1050.00 the said judgment of $350.00 will likewise be satisfied.' The action against the surety corporation was dismissed. From this judgment, none of the defendants appealed, but the plaintiffs appealed from that part thereof which dismissed, with prejudice, the action against the surety corporation.
The facts are these: The appellants, Frank Glaspey and Anna Glaspey, his wife, resided on premises at or near what is called the Nile Mill Camp, in Yakima county. February 4 1938, five individuals, who are above named as defendants came to the house and premises of the appellants for the purpose of making a search for contraband elk meat. These individuals were all employed as state game protectors, and operated under the direction of Bernard T. McCauley, who was the appointed, qualified, and acting director of the department of game of this state. When these game protectors went to the premises of the appellants, Mr. Glaspey met them at the door of the house, and they stated that they were there to make a search of the premises, and showed him a search warrant under which they were proposing to act. He read it and called their attention to the fact that it did not describe the premises upon which he and his wife were residing. Notwithstanding this, they placed handcuffs upon him, caused him to move some distance from the house, then pushed aside Mrs. Glaspey who was standing in the door, and proceeded with the search. No elk meat was found. Thereafter, the present action was brought for the purpose above stated.
Upon the trial, the plaintiffs offered in evidence a bond in which McCauley, as acting director of the department of game, was made the obligee, and the surety upon this bond was the National Surety Corporation, one of the defendants. They also offered in evidence a copy of a letter which the chief clerk of the department of game, one G. C. Brenner, had sent to the state auditor, in which he recited he was enclosing the bond and requested the filing thereof. As stated, these documents were offered in evidence, and, upon objection by the surety company, they were rejected.
The first and principal question upon this appeal is whether the superior court erred in that ruling.
The bond was admittedly purely a fidelity bond upon its face, and not an indemnity bond. Rem.Rev.Stat. (Sup.), § 5891, which is one of the sections of the game code, provides that all appointees, employees of the state game commission, and the director of game shall give a bond as therein provided. Section 10774, under the heading 'Official Bonds,' provides that every appointive state officer and every employee of the state shall, Before entering upon the discharge of his duties or employment, give a bond as therein provided. Section 9933 provides, referring to official bonds that: 'Whenever any such official bond shall not contain the substantial matter or condition or conditions required by law, or there shall be any defect in the approval or filing thereof, such bond shall not be void so as to discharge such officer and his sureties, but they shall be bound to the state or party interested, and the state or such par...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tucker v. Brown
... ... than one construction. Duke v. National [20 Wn.2d ... 848] Surety Co., 130 Wash. 276, 227 P. 2; Glaspey v ... Drolet, 6 Wash.2d 610, 108 P.2d 375 ... However, ... the liability of a surety cannot be extended by implication ... ...
-
National Bank of Washington v. Equity Investors
...of the risk assumed. Duke v. National Surety Co., 130 Wash. 276, 227 P. 2, Affirmed 131 Wash. 700, 230 P. 102 (1924); Glaspey v. Drolet, 6 Wash.2d 610, 108 P.2d 375 (1940); Tucker v. Brown, 20 Wash.2d 740, 150 P.2d 604 The rules of construction pertaining to suretyship contracts are complic......
-
State ex rel. Tollefson v. Novak
...and statutory provisions which are not expressed in the bond will be inserted therein. Duke v. National Surety Co., supra; Glaspey v. Drolet, supra. the provisions of Rem.Rev.Stat.Supp. § 7306-33A are incorporated into the bond, the violations involved in the first condition, those occurrin......