Chilson v. Downer
Supreme Court of Vermont
Indemnifying contract. Debt on a bond given by the defendant to the plaintiffs, in the ■penal sum of one thousand dollars, dated October 30, 1847. The condition of the bond was as follows: “ Whereas, the said L. G. & D. S. Chilson have heretofore attached, on a writ of attachment in their favor against John P. Belknap, a quantity of personal property, as the property of said Belknap, which said property is now advertised to be sold; * * * * * and the said Downer has…
Read the full summary
Indemnifying contract. Debt on a bond given by the defendant to the plaintiffs, in the ■penal sum of one thousand dollars, dated October 30, 1847. The condition of the bond was as follows: “ Whereas, the said L. G. & D. S. Chilson have heretofore attached, on a writ of attachment in their favor against John P. Belknap, a quantity of personal property, as the property of said Belknap, which said property is now advertised to be sold; * * * * * and the said Downer has heretofore purchased said claim against said Belknap, and has this day selected certain property, which he is willing to have…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Redfield, Ch. J.
The only question made, or decided, by the court below, seems to have been, whether the bond of the defendant bound him to pay any portion of the expenses of defending suits brought against the plaintiffs, and which did not prevail. There is no doubt this is the extent of the obligation imposed by ordinary covenants of warranty against adverse claims of title, that it extends only to legal claims. But it is competent for a party to bind himself to defend against all suits and claims, whether false or not. That is ordinarily a matter of…
2Cited by2 opinions
- United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. HittleSupreme Court of Iowa · 1903
- Cornell v. . Travelers' Ins. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1903