Legal Opinion · Dissent

Ward v. Federal Insurance Co.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided December 9, 1958No. 17480Published

1DissentLegge, Justice

All that the pleadings disclose concerning the bond in question is contained in the allegation in the complaint, admitted by the answer, that it was given “for the faithful performance of said contract (i. e. the contract between State Highway Department and Sloan Construction Company), including the payment of all lawful claims by reason of injuries received in and about said construction.” I think that the motion to strike should have been refused because the pleadings do not sufficiently disclose the terms and conditions of the bond to enable the court to determine the issue here…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. St. Paul-Mercury Indemnity Co. v. DonaldsonSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1954
  2. Greenville Airport Commission v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1955
  3. Cantey v. Newell Contracting Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1935

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

Powered by the Exa API