State ex rel. Walsh v. Dailey
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. The plaintiff has no right to claim indemnity of the administrator’s sureties for the wrong complained of, unless they can show an interest in the estate. —Holmes v. Cock, 2 Barb. Ch. 426, 429 ; Brandt on Surety. -640, sect. 502; Rowson v. Piper, 34 Me. 98 ; Williams on Ex. 536, note l.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. The plaintiff has no right to claim indemnity of the administrator’s sureties for the wrong complained of, unless they can show an interest in the estate. —Holmes v. Cock, 2 Barb. Ch. 426, 429 ; Brandt on Surety. -640, sect. 502; Rowson v. Piper, 34 Me. 98 ; Williams on Ex. 536, note l. And it must be a vested, not a contingent interest. — Stevens v. Cole, 7 Cush. 467. The surety is bound only for the faithful performance of the duties of an administration. — Harkerv. Irrick, 10 N. J. Eq. 269 ; Cunningham v. Sonza, 1 Redf. 462. And only for the…
1Opinion of the CourtBakewell, J.
The defendant Dailey, as administrator of Roddy, commenced an action under the statute for the possession of specific personal property which he claimed as belonging to the estate of his intestate. Plaintiff’s relator was one of the sureties in the bond given by the administrator on instituting this action. The personal property claimed was delivered by the sheriff to Dailey, who received the same as administrator. Judgment was for defendant and against the sureties, in that action, for the value of the property and costs. The principal and co-surety of Walsh, the relator of plaintiff in the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Gamble v. GibsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1875
- Dix v. MorrisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1877
3Cited by2 opinions
- Southwestern Surety Insurance v. Pacific Coast Casualty Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1916
- State Ex Rel. Gnekow v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1942