Moody v. Megee, 5586.
| Decision Date | 21 June 1930 |
| Docket Number | No. 5586.,5586. |
| Parties | MOODY, Governor of Texas, ex rel. UNITED STATES v. MEGEE et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
H. M. Holden, U. S. Atty., and Howell Ward, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Houston, Tex., for appellant.
Ballinger Mills and Joyce Cox, both of Galveston, Tex. (Terry, Cavin & Mills, of Galveston, Tex., on the brief), for appellee American Indemnity Co.
Before WALKER, BRYAN, and FOSTER, Circuit Judges.
The United States brought this suit to recover on the bond of Charles R. Megee, a pilot, for damages caused to the steamship Eldena through the negligence of Megee. A general demurrer was sustained and the suit dismissed.
The law of Texas provides that navigation and canal commissioners of navigation districts shall constitute pilot boards with the right to appoint, suspend, or dismiss from office branch pilots or deputy pilots of their respective ports, examine and determine upon their qualifications, and that all branch pilots appointed shall enter into bond with one or more good and sufficient sureties in the sum of $5,000, payable to the Governor, conditioned upon the faithful performance of the duties of his office. R. C. S. 1925, arts. 8248, 8250-8253. The condition of the bond in suit conforms to the requirement of the law.
It is elementary that bonds required by statute are to be strictly construed and are not to be extended by implication beyond the clearly expressed intent of the statute. The District Court, relying upon the following Texas cases, to-wit: McRea v. McWilliams, 58 Tex. 328; Clough v. Worsham, 32 Tex. Civ. App. 187, 74 S. W. 350; U. S. F. & G. Co. v. Jasper, 56 Tex. Civ. App. 236, 120 S. W. 1145; U. S. F. & G. Co. v. Crittenden, 62 Tex. Civ. App. 283, 131 S. W. 232, and other cases declaratory of the general law, which it is unnecessary to cite, held that the bond did not run in favor of third persons. Undoubtedly the cases cited support this conclusion.
Appellant, however, insists that the question presented is one of general law, as the statute involved has not been construed by the Supreme Court of Texas, and relies upon the case of Howard v. United States, 184 U. S. 676, 22 S. Ct. 543, 46 L. Ed. 754. In that case suit was brought on the bond of the clerk of a circuit court to recover money deposited with the clerk and embezzled by him. It was the duty of the clerk to receive and deposit officially all sums paid to him. The bond was in favor of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Steinhort v. CIR
...liability for its performance. Houston Pilots v. Goodwin, Tex.Civ.App. 1944, 178 S.W.2d 308, 312; cf. Moody ex rel. United States v. Megee, 5 Cir., 1930, 41 F.2d 515, 1930 AMC 1677. The deep water channel of the Houston Ship Channel terminates at the Turning Basin, approximately five miles ......
-
United States v. National Surety Corporation
...Howard v. United States, 184 U.S. 676, 22 S.Ct. 543, 46 L. Ed. 754; Moody v. Megee, D.C.Tex., 31 F.2d 117, affirmed by the 5th Cir. in 41 F. 2d 515; District of Columbia, to Use of Langellotti v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland, 50 App.D.C. 309, 271 F. 383; Equitable Surety Co. v. Board ......
-
Houston Pilots v. Goodwin
...there seems to be no misconception that the holder thereof is a federal officer, rather than a mere licensee. As was said in Moody v. Megee, 5 Cir., 41 F.2d 515: "All states have the right to license pilots for waters in their territorial jurisdiction * * *. It is not usual to require a bon......