New Amsterdam Cas. Co. v. Hyde
| Decision Date | 25 September 1934 |
| Citation | 148 Or. 229,35 P.2d 980 |
| Parties | NEW AMSTERDAM CASUALTY CO. et al. v. HYDE et al. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
In Banc.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County; James P. Stapleton, Judge.
On petitions for rehearing.
Rehearing denied.
For former opinion, see 34 P.2d 930.
Harry J. De Francq, of Portland (J. S. Moltzner, of Portland, on the brief), for appellant.
A. G. Fletcher, of Portland, for cross-respondents.
I. N. Smith and Richard Talboy, both of Portland (Platt, Platt, Smith & Black, of Portland, on the brief), for respondent and cross-appellant.
Appellants and respondents have each filed petitions earnestly requesting a rehearing herein. They also suggest that one statement contained in our opinion is susceptible of more than one construction; that is, where we say, "That the fund arising from the bond should be prorated among such claimants as shall have established their claims." Petitioners claim such statement may be construed to mean that the fund shall be applied only to the claims that have heretofore been established. While we deem such a construction would place quite a strain on the language used, we may clarify it by saying that it means that the bond or funds arising therefrom was and is intended for the protection of each one who may have been injured by reason of the violation of the terms of the bond. And all that is necessary for the party so injured to do, to entitle him to share in said fund, is to establish his claim before a court of competent jurisdiction having supervision over the administration of the fund. This court has no power to substitute or add conditions to the bond to which the obligor did not agree. Our authority consists solely in the ascertaining and declaring what is in terms or substance contained in the instrument and not "to insert what has been omitted, or to omit what has been inserted." Oregon Code 1930, § 9-214.
If the statute does not sufficiently secure the investor, the Legislature is the body to provide for the additional protection.
The other questions raised in the petition for rehearing were contained in the original briefs and passed upon in our former opinion.
The rehearing will be denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marshall v. Harris
...Union Land Associates v. Ussher, 174 Or. 453, 457, 149 P.2d 568 (1944); New Amsterdam Co. v. Hyde, 148 Or. 229, 239, 34 P.2d 930, 35 P.2d 980 (1934). Cf. State v. Whiteaker et al., 118 Or. 656, 661, 247 P. 1077, 1079 (1926).5 State v. Whiteaker et al., 118 Or. 656, 664, 247 P. 1077 (1926), ......
-
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Joiner Leasing Corporation
...So. 823; Somers v. Commercial Finance Corp., 245 Mass. 286, 139 N.E. 837; New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. Hyde, 148 Or. 229, 34 P.2d 930, 35 P.2d 980; Miller v. Stuart, 69 Utah 250, 253 P. 900. 16 See 3 Sutherland on Statutory Construction (3d ed. 1943) § 7104 and cases cited in note 8 thereu......
-
Maryland Casualty Co. v. Alford
...v. Pacific Indemnity Co., 134 Cal.App. 328, 25 P.2d 898, 900, 901; New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. Hyde, 148 Or. 229, 34 P.2d 930, 933, 35 P.2d 980; United States F. & G. Co. v. Zidell-Steinberg Co., 151 Or. 538, 50 P.2d 584, 591, 51 P.2d 687; Witter v. Massachusetts Bonding & I. Co., 215 Iow......
-
State v. Simons
...among cases tending toward strict construction, the Oregon case of New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. Hyde, 148 Or. 229, 34 P.2d 930, 933, 35 P.2d 980. That case was a civil suit for a declaratory judgment to determine the extent of the liability of the plaintiff under a bond executed by it to q......