Legal Opinion

Cusack v. McGrain

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided November 15, 1939No. 27491PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtZimmerman, J.

It is the position of the defendant casualty company that the bond by its plain terms is for the sole protection of the state of Ohio, as employer, and no one else can successfully assert a claim under it.

■Conversely, the plaintiff contends that the bond must be given the effect of the faithful performance bond of a public officer, and that he has a statutory right to maintain this action.

A bond is a contract and, in the absence of some controlling statute, is to be construed according to the fair import of the language used. Under such rule, the present bond on its face undertakes to pay to…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. SamuelsOhio Supreme Court · 1927
  2. Ohio Export Trading Co. v. Natl. SuretyOhio Supreme Court · 1926
  3. American Guaranty Co. v. McNieceOhio Supreme Court · 1924
  4. Southern Surety Co. v. ChambersOhio Supreme Court · 1926
  5. Maryland Casualty Co. v. McDiarmidOhio Supreme Court · 1927

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Dean v. Seco Electric Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1988
  2. City of Medina v. HoldridgeOhio Court of Appeals · 1970
  3. In Re the Appeal of Drain From Order of State Personnel Board of ReviewOhio Court of Appeals · 1970
  4. Bajwa v. United States Life Insurance CompanyDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2021
  5. Elliott v. Marc Wilcher Realty, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1959

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API