Legal Opinion

Fidelity Deposit Co. of Baltimore, Md. v. Rainer

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided March 21, 1929No. 3 Div. 876Published

1Opinion

On Rehearing.

BOULDIN, J.

On further consideration, a majority of the court has reached the conclusion that the contractor’s bond in this case means more than a mere indemnity to the owner as against claims for labor and material.

For ready reference we again set out the condition of the bond, numbering consecutively the conjunctive obligations therein, as follows:

“Now therefore the condition of this obligation is such that (1) if the principal shall faithfully perform the contract on his part, and (2) satisfy all claims and demands incurred for the same, and (3) shall fully indemnify and save…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Byram Lumber & Supply Co. v. PageSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1929
  2. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. W. & J. Knox Net & Twine Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1926
  3. Fite v. PearsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1926
  4. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. Fidelity & Deposit Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1927
  5. Copeland v. BeardSupreme Court of Alabama · 1928

4 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