Jaeger Mfg. Co. v. Am. Sur. Co. of N.Y., No. 45234.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Iowa
Writing for the CourtHALE
Citation231 Iowa 159,300 N.W. 684
Docket NumberNo. 45234.
Decision Date18 November 1941
PartiesJAEGER MANUFACTURING COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellee, v. AMERICAN SURETY COMPANY OF NEW YORK, a Corporation, Appellant.

231 Iowa 159
300 N.W. 684

JAEGER MANUFACTURING COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellee,
v.
AMERICAN SURETY COMPANY OF NEW YORK, a Corporation, Appellant.

No. 45234.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Nov. 18, 1941.


Appeal from District Court, Polk County; Russell Jordan, Judge.

Action at law to recover on surety bond. Judgment for plaintiff and defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

*684Carr, Cox, Evans & Riley, and Ehlers English, all of Des Moines, for appellant.

Carl A. Burkman, Stipp, Perry, Bannister & Starzinger, and Donald D. Holdoegel, all of Des Moines, for appellee.


HALE, Justice.

This is a companion case to Jaeger Manufacturing Company v. Maryland Casualty Company, 300 N.W. 680, decided at the present term. The facts and our conclusions as to the questions raised in all the three cases brought by plaintiff are fully set out in that case, which was first filed. The facts in the present case are substantially the same as in the preceding case, except as to the time covered by the bond which was for the year 1933. Much the same allegations appear in the petition, and the defense herein was that the plaintiff is not an obligee of the statutory bond; there was no breach of statutory duty; the bar of the statute of limitations; that the plaintiff enlarged and expanded the duties of the principal beyond those contemplated in the bond; that the plaintiff's loss was the result of the negligence of its own officers; and the failure of the plaintiff to pursue its claim against the bank on account of the forged checks. After trial to the court without a jury the court denied defendant's motion to withdraw issues and enter findings for the defendant as a matter of law, and entered judgment against the defendant for the alleged forgeries, with interest thereon; from which defendant appeals.

We have carefully examined the arguments in this case and the following, Jaeger Manufacturing Company v. Indemnity Insurance Company of North America, in connection with our examination of the Maryland Casualty Company case. A complete statement of the facts herein would amount in substance to a duplication of those set out in the preceding case, except as to the different items for which recovery is sought. In the Maryland Casualty Company case we have discussed some of the principal questions connected herewith and think it unnecessary to repeat the discussion here. Our holding, for the reasons given in the preceding case, is that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 practice notes
  • Jaeger Mfg. Co. v. Md. Cas. Co., No. 45080.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • November 18, 1941
    ...raised by defendant, we do not think applies here. We have already stated that Potwin was not a public officer. If he was not a [300 N.W. 684]public officer, subdivision 4 of Code section 11007 would not apply. Nor need we consider the question of reasonable diligence to discover the fraud.......
1 cases
  • Jaeger Mfg. Co. v. Md. Cas. Co., No. 45080.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • November 18, 1941
    ...raised by defendant, we do not think applies here. We have already stated that Potwin was not a public officer. If he was not a [300 N.W. 684]public officer, subdivision 4 of Code section 11007 would not apply. Nor need we consider the question of reasonable diligence to discover the fraud.......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT