Williamsburg City Fire Insurance v. Frothingham
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract on a bond, dated September 23,1874, running to “ the Williamsburg City Fire Insurance Company of Brooklyn, New York,” and its “ successors and assigns,” purporting to be executed by the defendant Frothingham as principal, and the defendants Albert G. Goodwin and William R. Storms as sureties, and conditioned that Frothingham, as its agent, should, among other things, “ duly and properly account for, pay over and apply all sums of money which may be received by him…
Read the full summary
Contract on a bond, dated September 23,1874, running to “ the Williamsburg City Fire Insurance Company of Brooklyn, New York,” and its “ successors and assigns,” purporting to be executed by the defendant Frothingham as principal, and the defendants Albert G. Goodwin and William R. Storms as sureties, and conditioned that Frothingham, as its agent, should, among other things, “ duly and properly account for, pay over and apply all sums of money which may be received by him as such agent,” and “keep true and correct books of account.” The writ, dated April 27,1875, described the plaintiff as…
1Opinion of the CourtGray, C. J.
The objection that the plaintiff was not a corporation was open to the defendant upon the pleadings. Mosler v. Potter, 121 Mass. 89. But the bond sued on and produced by the plaintiff, running to “ the Williamsburg City Fire Insurance Company of Brooklyn, Few York,” audits “ successors and assigns,” was sufficient primd facie evidence of the incorporation of the plaintiff. Williams v. Cheney, 3 Gray. 215. Topping v. Bickford, 4 Allen, 120. Conard v. Atlantic Ins. Co. 1 Pet. 386, 450. And, one condition of the bond being that the principal should keep true and correct books of account, the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Conard v. Atlantic Ins. Co. of NYSupreme Court of the United States · 1828
- United States v. GaussenSupreme Court of the United States · 1873
- Bahmann & Co. v. PotterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1876
3Cited by10 opinions
- Baltimore & Potomac Railroad v. Fifth Baptist ChurchSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Earnshaw v. WhittemoreMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1907
- Gorder v. Plattsmouth Canning Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1893
- McKim v. BlakeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1885
- Brillion Lumber Co. v. BarnardWisconsin Supreme Court · 1907
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.