Legal Opinion

Los Angeles Athletic Club v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 7, 1919No. Civ. No. 2886PublishedCited by 17 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtSloane, J.

This action was brought to. recover on a bond or policy of fidelity insurance. The plaintiff employed one Walter L. Patterson as manager of its clubhouse at a salary of three hundred dollars per month, with the express agreement “that he was to receive no other remuneration, perquisites, or consideration,” and “that he should pay the customary price or charge so fixed by plaintiff for every article of said goods, wares, and merchandise said Patterson should receive for himself and use to his own benefit”; and further, “that he was not, under any circumstances, to take, use, or receive for his…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Riddlesbarger v. Hartford InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1869
  2. Tayloe v. Merchants' Fire Ins. Co. of BaltimoreSupreme Court of the United States · 1850
  3. Quinlan v. Providence Washington InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1892
  4. Ermentrout v. Girard Fire & Marine InsuranceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1895
  5. California Sav. Bank v. American Surety Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern California · 1898

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Purefoy v. Pacific Automobile Indemnity ExchangeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
  2. Wehner v. FosterMichigan Supreme Court · 1951
  3. Pacific-Southern Mortgage Trust Co. v. Insurance Co.California Court of Appeal · 1985
  4. Hanover Insurance Co. v. CarrollCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1966
  5. Admiralty Fund v. Peerless InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1983

12 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