Legal Opinion
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Triborough Bridge Authority
New York Court of Appeals
Decided July 2, 1947PublishedCited by 74 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtFuld, J.
Money held by defendant Triborough Bridge Authority is claimed by both the surety, United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, as plaintiff — which became responsible, under a bond, for defaults in the debts of a contractor — and the Government of the United States as intervener — which seeks taxes owed by the contractor.
The facts are not disputed. On July 10, 1940, defendant Authority entered into a contract with Petraeca & Banko, Inc., for the construction of grade separations on the Hutchinson Biver Parkway Extension, for a contract price of $687,694.50. The contract required the…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Prairie State Bank v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
- United States v. Munsey Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Faber v. . City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1918
- Fosmire v. . National Surety Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1920
- American Surety Co. of NY v. SampsellSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by74 opinions
- Aetna Casualty And Surety Co. v. Aniero Concrete Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2005
- Aquilino v. United StatesNew York Court of Appeals · 1961
- Royal Indemnity Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1950
- Menorah Nursing Home, Inc. v. ZukovAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989
- Paul Pipola and Julia Pipola v. Mae Chicco and Yorkville Savings and Loan Association, and United States of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1960
69 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.