United States Fidelity Guarananty Company v. Charles Riefler
| Decision Date | 01 November 1915 |
| Docket Number | No. 11,11 |
| Citation | 36 S.Ct. 12,60 L.Ed. 121,239 U.S. 17 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANANTY COMPANY v. CHARLES J. RIEFLER and James A. Hall |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. A. F. Reichmann, Arthur M. Cox, Henry M. Wolf, Monroe L. Willard, and Noble B. Judah for the United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 17-21 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Walter M. Allen and Albert Salzenstein for Charles J. Riefler et al.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 21-23 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court:
The facts certified are simple. One Dooling, being required to give an official bond, applied in Springfield, Illinois, to an agent of the plaintiff in error, a bonding company having its home office in Baltimore, Maryland, was informed that the company would become his surety only on condition that he furnish indemnity, and was handed a printed form of indemnity bond. The defendants in error, at Dooling's request, signed and sealed this bond for the purposes therein expressed, and authorized Dooling to deliver it to the company through its Springfield agent, which Dooling did. The agent, who is not shown to have had authority to execute bonds, forwarded it for acceptance. The company, relying upon it, became surety for Dooling. One of the recitals of the bond was that the company 'has become or is about to become surety, at the request of the said Frank E. Dooling, on a certain bond in the sum of Five Thousand Two Hundred Dollars, wherein Frank E. Dooling is principal, as Recorder of Springfield District Court No. 25, Court of Honor, located at Springfield, Illinois, a copy of which bond is hereto attached No. 52012-5, which bond is made a part hereof.' The condition was that Dooling should keep the company indemnified for all loss by reason of its suretyship. A copy of the company's bond was not attached and at the date of the indemnity bond had not been executed. Dooling was not a party to the indemnity bond. The defendants in error received no pecuniary consideration for their act and were not notified of the acceptance of their bond or of the execution of the other by the company. The questions propounded are
If the bond in suit had been delivered directly to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Addison v. Commercial Nat. Bank in Shreveport
...1078, 83 Am.St. Rep. 279; Blackstone v. Miller, 188 U.S. 189, 206, 23 S.Ct. 277, 47 L.Ed. 439; United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Riefler, 239 U.S. 17, 25, 36 S.Ct. 12, 60 L.Ed. 121. Bills of exchange, negotiable notes and most commercial paper are also usually treated as `specialties......
-
Citizens' Nat. Bank of Pocomoke City v. Parsons, to Use of Worth
... ... Sheldon, 43 Vt. 512; ... U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Riefler, 239 U.S ... 17, 36 ... ...
-
Midland Nat. Bank v. Security Elevator Co., 24036.
...a guaranty of future advances is necessary to complete the contract seems to have lost ground. In United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Riefler, 239 U. S. 17, 36 S. Ct. 12, 60 L. Ed. 121, it was denied effect on a guaranty under seal. "If Riefler and Hall," the opinion states, "had made ......
-
State ex rel. Harding
... ... official bond." U.S. F. & G. Co. v. Riefler", ... 239 U.S. 17, 60 L. ed. 121 ... \xC2" ... of the court in holding that the complaint states facts ... sufficient to constitute a cause of ... 710] is well set forth in The United States Fidelity & G ... Co. v. Riefler, 239 ... ...