Legal Opinion

Father Matthew Young Men's Total Abstinence & Benevolent Society v. Fitzwilliam

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided June 27, 1882PublishedCited by 13 opinions

Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, Lindley, J.

1Opinion of the CourtBakewell, J.

This is an action upon a bond executed by Fitzwilliam as principal, and by the other defendants as his sureties. The bond was given to plaintiff, which is alleged to be a corporation, and is dated January 12, 1876. The penalty of the bond is $5,000, and it is conditioned that Fitzwilliam, who has been elected treasurer of the corporation, will faithfully perform his duties as treasurer, account for, and pay over, all moneys and effects which come to his hands whilst in office, and, at the expiration of his term, *446upon request, deliver to the society a correct account of all money and property…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Board of Commissioners v. ShieldsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
  2. Crispen v. HannavanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1872
  3. Roper v. Trustees of Sangamon Lodge No. 6Illinois Supreme Court · 1878
  4. Franz v. DietrickSupreme Court of Missouri · 1871
  5. Thornton v. Life Ass'n of AmericaMissouri Court of Appeals · 1879

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. St. Charles Savings Bank v. DenkeeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1918
  2. Smith v. Ohio Millers Mutual Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of Missouri · 1928
  3. United American Fire Insurance Co. v. American Bonding Co. of BaltimoreWisconsin Supreme Court · 1911
  4. Utah State Building Commission Ex Rel. Mountain States Supply Co. v. Great American Indemnity Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1943
  5. Father Matthew Young Men's Total Abstinence v. FitzwilliamsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1884

8 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