Kilborn v. Cooke
Ohio Supreme Court
Covenant. The declaration is upon a bond of indemnity given to the plaintiff, to indemnify him against loss upon a bond given by him as the security of Cooke as a constable. The condition annexed to the bond is, that it shall become void if Cooke faithfully discharge the duties of his office, and faithfully pass over all moneys collected by him in virtue of his office.
Read the full summary
Covenant. The declaration is upon a bond of indemnity given to the plaintiff, to indemnify him against loss upon a bond given by him as the security of Cooke as a constable. The condition annexed to the bond is, that it shall become void if Cooke faithfully discharge the duties of his office, and faithfully pass over all moneys collected by him in virtue of his office. Breach, that several executions came into the hands of Cooke, as constable, in favor of Kilborn, the plaintiff, which he neglected to return, or to pay over the money to the plaintiff. There is an averment that a suit has been…
1Opinion of the Court
BY THE COURT.
The real question in this case is this, does the bond cover the liability of the defendant, Cooke, for his neglect as constable, on the executions in favor of the plaintiff ? We think the condition cf the bond two-fold.
*721st. To save Kilborn harmless for all the liabilities growing out *of his having gone security for the constable. 2d. To in- [7Ü demnify him against liability to others. If it were not so, the bond would not operate as a complete indemnity ; and if Kilborn had business for a constable, he would be without the security which the law contemplates for all. Ought this…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Williamson's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1880
- Bender ex rel. Mueller v. GeorgeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1879