Legal Opinion
City of East Cleveland v. Fidelity & Deposit Co.
District Court, N.D. Ohio
Decided November 6, 1933No. 17669PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WEST, District Judge.
This is an action by the city of East Cleveland against the defendant, a bonding company, to recover upon a depository bond given under Gen. Code, § 4295, the amount remaining in the hands of the depository and which it refused to pay over on April 5-, 1933. Jury was waived. The Chagrin Falls Banking Company was depository, and its refusal was based wholly upon the federal and state emergency legislation and orders issued thereunder early in 1933. Section 5, tit. 50 USCA, and section 95, tit. 12 USCA; Presidential Proclamations March 6 and 9, 1933 (12 USCA § 95 note);…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Backus v. FeeksWashington Supreme Court · 1913
- Sneeden v. City of Marion, Ill.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1933
- Gates v. TebbettsNebraska Supreme Court · 1909
- State Ex Rel. Zimmerman v. GibbesSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1933
- Zimmermann v. MillerDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1924
3Cited by6 opinions
- Barbour v. ThomasCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1936
- Phelps v. DawsonCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1938
- Commonwealth v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
- Smith v. WitherowCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1939
- Hanley v. CorwinDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1936
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.