Legal Opinion

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Falk

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided January 2, 1943No. 33,274PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Hilton, Justice.

Action by the surety on an executor’s probate bond to recover of the principals on the bond the sum of $900, claimed to be the reasonable value of attorneys’ fees expended by the surety for the alleged purpose of appearing in opposition to the petition of an heir of the estate to set aside the final account of the executors (defendants here) and questioning the propriety of their administration of certain assets of the estate. From a judgment for plaintiff against defendant Bauman on the pleadings as amended and after certain portions of the answer were stricken, Bauman…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Stickney v. GowardSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1925
  2. State ex rel. Engelhard v. WeberSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1905
  3. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. DahlSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1938
  4. Southwest Nat. Bank v. Employers' Indemnity Corp.Texas Commission of Appeals · 1929
  5. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. HittleSupreme Court of Iowa · 1903

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Phipps v. Clark Oil & Refining Corp.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1987
  2. Great American Indemnity Co. v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 1952
  3. Morgan v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1966
  4. Lamp, Inc. v. International Fidelity InsuranceAppellate Court of Illinois · 1986
  5. Independent School District No. 24 v. WeinmannSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1955

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