Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co. v. Board of Com'rs of Adams County, 13886.
| Decision Date | 19 April 1937 |
| Docket Number | 13886. |
| Parties | MASSACHUSETTS BONDING & INSURANCE CO. v. BOARD OF COUNTY COM'RS OF ADAMS COUNTY. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied May 24, 1937.
In Department.
Error to District Court, Adams County; Samuel W. Johnson, Judge.
Action on a fidelity bond by the Board of County Commissioners of Adams County, Colo., against the Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Company. To review a judgment for plaintiff defendant brings error.
Affirmed.
Wm. E Hutton and J. P. Nordlund, both of Denver, for plaintiff in error.
William W. Gaunt, of Brighton, for defendant in error.
This was an action brought by the Board of County Commissioners of Adams County, defendant in error, against the Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Company, plaintiff in error, defendant below, to recover on a fidelity bond. Judgment was in favor of the county in the trial court and the bonding company prosecutes error.
The facts are substantially as follows: On April 6, 1923, Ben Shearston, the then county treasurer of Adams county appointed Harvey Shearston, as deputy county treasurer and he occupied that position until January 27, 1934.
The bond involved (hereinafter identified as Exhibit A) was in words and figures as follows:
The premiums on this bond amounting to $15 a year were paid regularly each year and statements were issued by the Daly Agency of Denver as agent of the bonding company.
Beginning in June, 1928, and continuing until February, 1933, Harvey Shearston embezzled from the county treasurer's office the total sum of $29,488.37. These defalcations averaged over $3,000 a year, from 1928 to 1933, inclusive, and the lower court allowed the maximum penalty of the bond of $3,000 to be recovered for each of the five years, making a total of $15,000.
For the purpose of argument, the bonding company groups its assignments of error into the following points: (1) That it was surety on only one continuing bond and its maximum liability for the entire period involved was $3,000. (2) Assuming that the bond or contract sued upon in each of the causes of action of the complaint is a new, separate, and distinct obligation, it is void and unenforceable under the statute of frauds. (3) Assuming that any new, enforceable bonds separate and distinct from the bond referred to as Exhibit A, were entered into, each of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ballow v. PHICO Ins. Co.
...determine what the parties had in mind at the time of procuring the insurance policy); see also Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co. v. Board of County Comm'rs, 100 Colo. 398, 68 P.2d 555 (1937) (holding whether a renewal of an insurance contract creates a new and independent contract or a cont......
-
A.B.S. Clothing Collection, Inc. v. Home Ins. Co.
...among others, Great American Indemnity Co. v. State (Tx.Ct.Civ.App.1950) 229 S.W.2d 850, 853; Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co. v. Board of Co. Com'rs (1937) 100 Colo. 398, 68 P.2d 555, 556.) Where indemnity is afforded through separate and distinct contracts for specific policy periods the ......
-
Aronoff v. Carraher
...rule has been applied under circumstances comparable to those involved in the instant action: Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Co. v. Board of County Commissioners, 100 Colo. 398, 68 P.2d 555; Maryland Casualty Co. v. First National Bank, 5 Cir., 246 F. 892; Schock v. Penn. Tp. Mut. Fire I......
-
George Washington University v. Scott
...Other states and federal circuits see each renewal as a new and separate contract. See, e.g., Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co. v. Board of County Comm'rs, 100 Colo. 398, 68 P.2d 555 (1937); Schock v. Penn Tp. Mut. Fire Ins. Ass'n, 148 Pa.Super. 77, 24 A.2d 741 (1942); Boone v. Standard Acci......
-
The 1992 Colorado Antitrust Act: Per Se Bidrigging and Key Issues
...at 947; Hinshaw v. Department of Welfare, 403 P.2d 206, 208-10 (Colo. 1965); Massa-chusetts Bonding & Ins. Co. v. Board of County Comm'rs, 68 P.2d 555,557 (Colo. 1937). 50. Compare Bowen v. Turgoose, 314 P.2d 694, 696 (Colo. 1957) (applying Dietemann, supra, note 42), with Styers, supra, no......
-
Enforcing Oral Contracts
...Skyline Steel Corp. v. A.J. Dupuis Co., 648 F.Supp. 360 (E.D. Mich. 1986). [9] Mass. Bonding & Ins. Co. v. Bd. of Comm'rs of Adams Cty, 68 P.2d 555 (Colo. 1937). [10] Beckwith v. Talbot, 2 Colo. 639 (Colo. 1875). [11] L.U. Cattle Co. v. Wilson, 714 P.2d 1344, 1347 (Colo.App. 1986). [12] Cry......