Legal Opinion
Title Guaranty & Surety Co. v. Duarte
California Court of Appeal
Decided September 19, 1921No. Civ. No. 2288PublishedCited by 5 opinions
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtHart, J.
This is an action against the defendants Vincent, as principal, and Joe Rose Duarte and Gonzales, as sureties, on a bond executed and given by said defendants as indemnity to the sheriff of Merced County on a sale of certain personal property seized by said officer under a writ of attachment.
The plaintiff, a corporation, is and was, at all the times mentioned in the complaint, engaged in a general guaranty and surety business, and at all said times one S. C. Cornell was sheriff of said county of Merced; that the plaintiff was at all said times and down to the date of the death of said…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Jackson Co. v. Boylston Mutual InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1885
- Mathews v. . AikinNew York Court of Appeals · 1848
- Townsend v. Cleveland Fire Proofing Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1897
- Boone County Bank v. ByrumSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1900
- Leavitt v. Canadian Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1897
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Meyers v. Bank of America National Trust and Savings Ass'nCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938
- Storm & Butts v. LipscombCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
- Johnson v. Mortgage Guarantee Co.California Court of Appeal · 1931
- County of San Diego v. CroghanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934
- Indemnity Insurance v. SampsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940