Skip to main content
· 5/2/1904

American Bonding Co. v. Spokane Building & Loan Soc.

Citations

  • 130 F. 737
  • 65 C.C.A. 121
  • 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4212

Syllabus

<p>1. Fidelity Insurance — Warranties — Breach—Corporations—Knowledge of Officers.</p> <p>Under 1 Ballinger’s Ann. Codes & St. § 4255, providing that all corporate management shall be vested in a board of trustees, where an application for fidelity insurance by a building and loan association stated that the secretary insured derived his authority from the board of trustees, knowledge on the part of a single officer, trustee, or the president of the association that the secretary was indebted to it at the time the policy was issued could not be imputed to the corporation without proof'that the officer’s knowledge had been communicated to the board, so as to constitute a breach of a warranty in the policy that the secretary was not indebted to the association at the time of the issuance thereof.</p> <p>2. Same — False Statements — Knowledge.</p> <p>Where a fidelity bond securing a building and loan association against the embezzlement of its secretary provided that all the representations made by the employer to the surety were warranted by the employer to be true; that the employs had not, to the knowledge of the employer or its officers, been in arrears or a defaulter, and the association stated that its secretary was not at that time in debt to it; that he had property, funds, securities, and valuables on hand to balance his accounts — such statement did not constitute a warranty that the secretary was not indebted to the association at the time as a fact, but only that he was not so indebted, etc., to the knowledge of the association or its officers.</p> <p>li 1. Fidelity insurance, see note to American Credit Indemnity Co. v. Wood, 19 C. C. A. 273.</p>

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • denying plaintiff’s request to re-produce data in its native format because doing so would compromise privacy
  • “The duty of good faith and fair dealing is not a recognized, independent tort cause of action.”
  • “Absent a need for . . . the native format of this information—a need which Plaintiff has not established—the Court will not require Defendant to re-produce the information”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Haweey

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.