Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. Hyde

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided July 10, 1934Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBailey, J.

I concur in the conclusion reached in the majority opinion to the effect that the limit of liability of the surety on the bond in question is the sum of $5,000, and that each individual having a valid claim should share pro rata in the division of the $5,000 to be paid by the surety, in the event that the total of the claims exceeds the penalty named in the bond.

To enunciate, however, the doctrine that the amount of the bond should be prorated among those having just claims, without some qualification or limitation, is merely to invite further litigation and to render practically worthless…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Dezouche v. GarrisonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1891
  2. McKinney v. KuhnMississippi Supreme Court · 1881
  3. President of the Union Bank v. KerrHigh Court of Chancery of Maryland · 1849
  4. Logan v. Equitable Trust Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1934

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

Powered by the Exa API