Skip to main content
· 5/7/1907

Livingston v. Fidelity & Deposit Co.

Citations

  • 76 Ohio St. (N.S.) 253

Syllabus

<p>Corporation applying to surety company for bond — Guaranteeing honesty of employe — Statements as to past conduct of such employe — Become part of contract for such bond — Bondsmen not liable for acts of said employe — Except within direct scope of his specified duties.</p> <p>1. Written statements made by a corporation accompanying an application to a bonding company for a bond guaranteeing the honesty of employes, which statements relate to the past conduct of such employes in their service as such, and are intended to and do enter into the contract and become the inducement in part for the issuing of the bond, are in the nature of warranties, and their falsity in any material particular will defeat recovery on the bond for the delinquency of such employes.</p> <p>2. Where, in a suit upon a bond executed to a loan company guaranteeing the honesty of an employe, it appears that it was stipulated in the application for such bond that the duties of such employe are to receive and deposit all moneys received by the company, to indorse checks for deposit only, and not authorized to sign checks or accept drafts, or pay out on account, with no authority to withdraw money, and the obligation of the bond is to make good any loss occasioned by the fraud or dishonesty of such employe in connection with his duties as specified, and the bondsman not to be liable for other than the personal acts of such employe within the direct scope of his specified duties, the bondsman will not be held for the dishonesty of such employe in inducing the loan company to accept a loan to a fictitious person, on fictitious security, and procuring the money from the bank where moneys of the company are on deposit, on a check issued by the company in the name of such fictitious borrower, by forging his name upon the check.</p>

How courts have described this case

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

  • testimony on how to design and operate a machine “safely” properly admitted in case where plaintiff was injured by the operation of the machine

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Crew, Price, Shauck, Spear, Summers

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.