Peterson v. Miller Rubber Co. of New York
Decision Date | 25 January 1928 |
Docket Number | No. 7690.,7690. |
Citation | 24 F.2d 59 |
Parties | PETERSON et al. v. MILLER RUBBER CO. OF NEW YORK. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
H. V. Mercer, of Minneapolis, Minn. (E. J. Lien and John G. Priebe, both of Minneapolis, Minn., on the brief), for plaintiffs in error.
Clark R. Fletcher, of Minneapolis, Minn. (E. P. Allen, of Minneapolis, Minn., on the brief), for defendant in error.
Before STONE, Circuit Judge, and REEVES and OTIS, District Judges.
Plaintiffs in error seek reversal of a judgment in the sum of $10,000 recovered against them as sureties or guarantors by defendant in error in the trial court. Plaintiffs in error and another were defendants below, and defendant in error was plaintiff, and the parties will be so designated in this opinion.
The style of the action was "Miller Rubber Company of New York, a Corporation, v. F. W. Abbott Company, a Corporation, and E. G. Peterson and F. W. Abbott, defendants." F. W. Abbott Company did not join in the application for writ of error, nor did it sue out such a writ on its own account. The judgment was "that the plaintiff, Miller Rubber Company of New York, a corporation, do have and recover of and from the defendant F. W. Abbott Company, a corporation, the sum of twelve thousand six hundred and twelve and 6/100 dollars ($12,612.06), and from the defendants E. G. Peterson and F. W. Abbott the sum of ten thousand and no/100 dollars ($10,000.00), in all the sum of twelve thousand six hundred and twelve and 6/100 dollars ($12,612.06), together with its costs and disbursements in this behalf expended."
The action proceeded against the individual defendants upon the theory of a suretyship for the corporate defendant. Plaintiff manufactured and sold automobile tires, tubes, and accessories, and F. W. Abbott Company had been employed as a sales agent. The petition alleged the execution of a written contract of employment between the assignor of the plaintiff and F. W. Abbott Company on the 1st day of November, 1918. This agreement was in its nature an agency contract, plaintiff company being the principal. Among other duties devolved upon the corporate defendant as agent, by the contract, was the following:
"It being understood and agreed that the party of the second part shall assume and pay all collection expenses and assume all losses for bad accounts and further said second party shall execute and deliver to said first party a bond to the approval of first party in the sum of ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00), guaranteeing the payment to it of all accounts for goods sold by second party, the liability on said bond to become fixed at the option of the first party as to each account on failure to pay the same within sixty days after maturity and the surety on said bond shall waive all notice of default in payment of any account and shall consent to any extension of time of payment thereof, and said bond shall be further conditional to secure the safe delivery and redelivery to first party of all stock so placed in the hands of second party as hereinafter provided." (Italics are ours.)
On the same date, and pursuant to the requirements of said contract, the corporate defendant, with the individual defendants as sureties, executed and delivered to plaintiff their bond in the penal sum of $10,000. The following pertinent recitals are contained in said bond:
"It is agreed by and between the parties hereto that the liability of the surety on this bond shall not become absolute as to any account for goods sold by said the F. W. Abbott Company under said contract, unless said account or any part thereof shall remain unpaid for sixty days after the maturity thereof (the terms of sale to be thirty days net) and said surety consents to an extension or extensions of time of payment, or extensions of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Trans-Bay Engineers & Builders, Inc. v. Hills
...in October, 1972, J.A. 328-54.22 396 F.Supp. at 270.23 In re Steen, 509 F.2d 1398, 1403 (9th Cir. 1975); Peterson v. Miller Rubber Co., 24 F.2d 59, 62 (8th Cir. 1928), cited with approval, St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Tennefos Construction Co., 396 F.2d 623, 628 (8th Cir. 1968). ......
-
United States v. Merchants Mutual Bonding Company
...had to the circumstances and other documents known to all parties in order that the Court may determine their intent. Peterson v. Miller Rubber Co., 8 Cir., 24 F.2d 59; Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Co. v. Feutz, A contract of suretyship is normally between the surety and his principal;......
-
United States v. Tyler
...had to the circumstances and other documents known to all parties in order that the Court may determine their intent. Peterson v. Miller Rubber Co., 8 Cir., 24 F.2d 59; Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Co. v. Feutz, A contract of suretyship is normally between the surety and his principal;......
-
COMMERCIAL NAT. BANK IN SHREVEPORT v. Parsons
...contract will permit." 11 Howell v. Commissioner, 8 Cir., 69 F.2d 447; Id., 292 U.S. 654, 54 S.Ct. 864, 78 L.Ed. 1503; Peterson v. Miller Rubber Co., 8 Cir., 24 F.2d 59; 28 C.J. 12 3 Am.Jur., Sec. 814. 13 McKenzie v. A. Engelhard & Sons Co., 266 U.S. 131, 142, 45 S.Ct. 68, 69 L.Ed. 205, 36 ......