Legal Opinion

Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Burden

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided February 4, 1929No. Nos. 130, 131PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAugustus N. Hand, Circuit Judge

(after stating the'facts as above).

The obligations of Burden are to be ascertained from the terms of his applications. They were for supersedeas bonds, and it may be and indeed is argued that any such bonds, though to secure all the defendants, who appealed, would meet the terms of his applications. But such is an unreasonable interpretation of the acts of the parties. Burden was under no obligation to the other defendants, and had no reason that is apparent to furnish indemnity for them. He testified that all the other defendants, whose interests, were hostile to his, were represented by…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Holker v. ParkerSupreme Court of the United States · 1813
  2. National Mechanics' Banking Ass'n v. ConklingNew York Court of Appeals · 1882
  3. Alexandria Canal Co. v. SwannSupreme Court of the United States · 1847
  4. Luce v. FosterNebraska Supreme Court · 1894
  5. White v. DavidsonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1855

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. American Surety Co. v. Singer Sewing MacH. Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1937
  2. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. BurdenCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1931

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

Powered by the Exa API