Legal Opinion
Hill v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co.
California Court of Appeal
Decided April 9, 1930No. Docket No. 86PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
STROTHER, J., pro tem.
The plaintiff was sheriff of the county of Tulare, and in January, 1923, appointed Charles R. Hurst as a deputy acting as undersheriff, and required him to give a bond for the faithful performance of his duties. A bond reciting that “We, Charles R. Hurst, as principal, and New Amsterdam Casualty Company,” etc., “as surety, are held and firmly bound,” in the sum of one thousand dollars, was executed by the defendant, and delivered by Hurst to the plaintiff without execution by him as principal. The bond was not approved by a judge of the Superior Court, or recorded.
Hurst…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- People v. ToalCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- People v. HartleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1863
- State v. RhoadesNevada Supreme Court · 1871
- Hull v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1883
- Norton v. LewisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1917
3Cited by4 opinions
- Great American Indemnity Co. v. Gobierno de la CapitalSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1942
- Smith v. County EngineerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968
- People v. Fidelity & Deposit Co.California Court of Appeal · 1930
- Great American Indemnity Co. v. Government of the CapitalSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1942