U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Overstreet

• Decision Date: 07 February 1905
• Parties: UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO. v. OVERSTREET.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

84 S.W. 764

UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO. v. OVERSTREET.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

February 7, 1905

Appeal from Circuit Court, Ballard County.

"Not to be officially reported."

Action by Hugh Overstreet against the United States Fidelity &amp Guaranty Company. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff defendant appeals. Reversed.

Bodley Baskin & Flexner, for appellant.

J. B Wickliffe, for appellee.

O'REAR J.

Appellee had in his employ one J. L. Davidson as compiler of material for an edition of appellee's newspaper. Davidson's duties as compiler seem to have been confined to soliciting advertising matter for the special edition, and collecting the pay for it. He was required by appellee to execute a bond indemnifying appellee against certain defalcations, which he did, with appellant as surety. The obligation of the bond was that the surety would "make good and reimburse to the employer all and any pecuniary loss sustained by the employer, of money, securities, or other personal property in the possession of the employé [Davidson] in the discharge of the duties of his office or position as set forth *** amounting to larceny or embezzlement, and which shall have been committed during a continuance of the bond." It was further stipulated in the bond: "*** It being the true intent and meaning of this bond that the company [appellant] shall be responsible only as aforesaid, for moneys, securities or property diverted from the employer through fraud or dishonesty, amounting to larceny or embezzlement aforesaid, on the part of the employé within the period specified in this bond, while in the discharge of the duties of the office or position to which he has been elected or appointed."

Appellee advanced money and other property and credits to his compiler to enable the latter to prosecute his work, expecting that Davidson would be charged with it all in his final settlement. Upon the same idea, appellee engaged to certain of Davidson's creditors that he would be responsible for his bills, and accordingly paid them. Before completing his work, Davidson decamped, without repaying his employer the sums so advanced to him and on his account. In addition Davidson turned in certain contracts which turned out to have been forgeries, so it is said. The parties in whose names they appear to have been made repudiated them as not genuine. This suit against the surety sought to charge it with all of...