United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Crittenden
| Decision Date | 13 October 1910 |
| Citation | 131 S.W. 232 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO. v. CRITTENDEN et al. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Action by Sol Crittenden against the United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company and another. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company brings error. Reversed.
Hunt, Myer & Townes, for plaintiff in error.
The plaintiff in error is a surety on the official bond of John Lane as a police officer of the city of Ft. Worth. The bond is in the sum of $500, and is payable to the city of Ft. Worth, conditioned upon the faithful performance by Lane of his duties as a police officer. Claiming that he was assaulted and wrongfully imprisoned by Lane while acting in his official capacity as a police officer of the city of Ft. Worth, the defendant in error, Crittenden, sued such officer and plaintiff in error as his surety on his official bond. Judgment by default was rendered in favor of the defendant in error Crittenden, against both the principal and surety on the bond for the amount of the bond. Plaintiff in error by proper assignments challenges the judgment rendered against it as surety on the bond.
The bond, it is seen, is an official bond payable to the city of Ft. Worth and conditioned on the faithful performance of official duties. Unless there be some express provision of law, which would be read into the bond as a part thereof, authorizing suit upon such official bond by an individual for a wrong done him by an officer, then the well-settled principle of law that the obligation of a surety cannot be extended beyond the terms of his bond nor to one not a party thereto would seem to be applicable, as the bond only created relations between the city as an entity which the official represented and such official. Clough v. Worsham, 32 Tex. Civ. App. 187, 74 S. W. 350; Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Jasper, 120 S. W. 1145. Looking to the charter of the city of Ft Worth, which we are required by section 130, p. 127, Sp. Laws 1907, to take judicial cognizance of, there is no provision found in the charter authorizing suits upon official bonds of policemen by persons injured by the unlawful acts of policemen, nor any provision that the bond so required of them, when executed, shall be for the benefit of the individual who considers himself aggrieved by misperformance of duties on the part of policemen. There is no allegation in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lynch v. Burgess
...the assignee. The courts of the United States have jurisdiction in suits on a marshal's bond, as in a case arising under the laws of the United States. Bachrack v. 132 U.S. 337, 10 S.Ct. 106. 33 L.Ed. 377. Under Section 784, 28 U.S.C. A. Sec. 500, suit can be brought by the party injured by......
-
Laney v. Rush, 5254.
...the law of this State no liability of the surety company is shown by the appellant's allegations. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Crittenden et al., 62 Tex.Civ.App. 283, 131 S.W. 232; American Indemnity Co. v. Yocham, Tex.Civ. App., 42 S.W.2d 817, writ refused; United States Fideli......
-
Burkland v. Bliss
...AmStRep 451; United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Jasper, 56 Tex. Civ. App. 236, 120 S.W. 1145; United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Crittenden, 62 Tex. Civ. App. 283, 131 S.W. 232; Alexander v. Ison, 107 Ga. 745, 33 S.E. 657. The right of an individual to maintain an action on the ......
-
Moody v. Megee, 5586.
...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 ......