United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company v. Nooney
Decision Date | 06 May 1922 |
Docket Number | 23,722 |
Citation | 111 Kan. 271,207 P. 322 |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Parties | UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY COMPANY, Appellee, v. ALBERT H. NOONEY et al. (THEODORE T. GRABSKE, Appellant) |
Decided January, 1922.
Appeal from Wyandotte district court, division No. 2; FRANK D HUTCHINGS, judge.
Judgment affirmed.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
INDEMNITY BOND--Terms Not Affected by Prior or Contemporaneous Oral Agreements. When parties have deliberately put their engagements in a written contract in itself complete, it is deemed to be the best evidence of their agreements, and it is not competent for one of them to assert or show that there were oral, prior or contemporaneous negotiations and understandings as to conditional liability which are inconsistent with and contradictory of those in the written contract.
J. K. Cubbison, and William G. Holt, both of Kansas City, for the appellant.
W. L. Wood, of Kansas City, for the appellee.
This was an action brought by the U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Company upon an indemnity bond given by Theodore T. Grabske, to indemnify the plaintiff against loss on a contract of suretyship. It was decided that the answer of the defendant did not state a defense, and from that ruling Grabske appeals.
From the pleadings it appears that Albert H. Nooney entered into a contract with the board of education of Kansas City to furnish material and install a heating apparatus in a high-school building. He procured the Guaranty Company to give a bond that the contract would be carried out. Before doing so the Guaranty Company required Nooney to give a bond indemnifying it against loss by reason of its suretyship. That bond was signed by Grabske and this action is brought thereon. It appears that Nooney failed in the performance of his contract with the board of education and the Guaranty Company was obliged to pay a considerable sum of money to the board of education under its contract of guaranty. Grabske's defense was set up in an answer and was to the effect that he had been invited by one Taylor, the agent of the Guaranty Company, to sign the bond, and that as a consideration for signing it Taylor represented that he had arranged with the board of education that no money should be drawn by Nooney on the contract without the consent of Taylor and that Taylor assured him that no money would be paid on the contract except under the directions...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Milner v. Earl Fruit Co. of Northwest
... ... J. MILNER, Respondent, v. EARL FRUIT COMPANY OF THE NORTHWEST, a Corporation, Appellant ... 73, 201 P. 316; United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v ... Grabske, ... ...
-
Boller's Estate, In re
...Alliance Insurance Co., 103 Kan. 517, 175 P. 383; Hazelton v. Chaffin, 109 Kan. 175, 177, 197 P. 870; United States Fidelity& Guaranty Co. v. Grabske, 111 Kan. 271, 207 P. 322; Radebaugh v. Dillon, 119 Kan. 492, 240 P. 406. We recognize the general rule contended for, but there are exceptio......
-
The MacKsville State Bank v. Ehrlich
...106 Kan. 287, 187 P. 881; Bank v. Pirotte, 107 Kan. 573, 193 P. 327; Hangen v. Pinkston, 110 Kan. 463, 204 P. 675; Guaranty Co. v. Grabske, 111 Kan. 271, 207 P. 322.) See, also, Anno.--Parol Evidence--Bill or Note, 20 A. L. 421-502. Nothing suggestive of prejudicial error in this record is ......
-
Kasper v. The Kansas City
... ... CITY, LEAVENWORTH & WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant No. 23,718Supreme Court of KansasMay ... case of Spokane & I. E. R. Co. v. United States, ... 241 U.S. 344, 60 L.Ed. 1037, 36 ... ...