Legal Opinion

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Thomlinson-Arkwright Co.

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided September 7, 1943PublishedCited by 29 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBrand, J.

The plaintiff surety companies contend that the defendant Occidental Company was required by the above quoted terms of the bond to protect the Warren Company by assuming the defense of the tort claims and by paying Malben and Redd and that: by reason of the failure of the defendant to do so the. plaintiffs were required to make the payments and incur the expenses set forth in the stipulation. The obligation of plaintiff companies to do so grew out of the liability policies which plaintiffs had issued to the Warren Company. They now seek subrogation to the rights of the Warren Company against…

2Cases cited33 opinions

  1. Oceanic Steam Navigation Co. v. Compania Transatlantica EspanolaNew York Court of Appeals · 1892
  2. Meyers v. Bank of America National Trust and Savings Ass'nCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938
  3. John Griffiths & Son Co. v. National Fireproofing Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1923
  4. United States F. & G. Co. v. BramwellOregon Supreme Court · 1923
  5. Kampmann v. RothwellTexas Supreme Court · 1908

28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by29 opinions

  1. Waterway Terminals Co. v. P. S. Lord Mechanical ContractorsOregon Supreme Court · 1965
  2. Booth-Kelly Lumber Co. v. Southern Pacific Co. Southern Pacific Co. v. Booth-Kelly Lumber CoCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1950
  3. Groshong v. Mutual of Enumclaw InsuranceOregon Supreme Court · 1999
  4. Southern Pacific Co. v. Morrison-Knudsen Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1959
  5. American Fidelity & Casualty Co., Inc. v. All American Bus Lines, IncCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1950

24 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