Legal Opinion · Dissent

Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Port of Seattle

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided October 3, 1939No. 9054Published

1DissentHaney, Circuit Judge

I conceive that the majority opinion fundamentally errs by favoring appellant with an exceedingly narrow construction of provisions written by such company in a bond. I know of no rule of law, and the parties cite none, requiring us to bestow such a benefit on the company.

The company agreed . “to indemnify and save harmless * * * [appellee] from any and all loss which it may sustain” in any of the following contingencies: (1) Failure of any employee named therein “to faithfully perform such duties as may be required of him from time to time”; (2) failure of such employee “to account for all…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. The "Idaho."Supreme Court of the United States · 1877
  2. Duke v. National Surety Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1924
  3. Hale County v. American Indemnity Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1933
  4. United States v. RehwaldDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1930
  5. Zagar v. Columbia Casualty Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1935

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

Powered by the Exa API