Legal Opinion
Disheroon v. Brock
Supreme Court of Alabama
Decided October 22, 1925No. 6 Div. 375PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSomerville, J.
The official bond of the defendant Disheroon, under which his codefendant, the Fidelity & Deposit Company, is sought to he held liable as surety, is blank as to the date of its execution. Its condition is:
“That whereas the above bound W. A. Disheroon was duly - May 1st, 1922, to the office of regular deputy on the 1st day of May, 1922, for the term of one year from the 1st day of May, 1922, in precinct No.-in and for said county [Jefferson]. Now, if the said W. A. Disheroon shall faithfully perform and discharge all the duties of said office during his continuance therein, then the above…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- South & North Ala. Railroad v. McLendonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1879
- Prince v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1893
- Engle v. SimmonsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1906
- McMullen v. Winfield Building & Loan Ass'nSupreme Court of Kansas · 1902
- Long v. SeigelSupreme Court of Alabama · 1912
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- McGuff v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1946
- Ledbetter v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1948
- National Surety Co. v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1929
- Fleming v. KnowlesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1961
- Reeves v. MeltonCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 1974
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.