Legal Opinion
In re Landau
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided June 26, 1930PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam.(1) The court was without power to proscribe this surety company or any other surety company and exclude it from the writing of surety bonds in judicial proceedings. Section 156 of the Civil Practice Act requires such a company to justify if its bond be excepted to. The Insurance Law, section 109-a, subdivision 2 (as renum. and amd. by Laws of 1924, chap. 544; subd. 2 is former section 182), provides that a certificate of solvency from the Superintendent of Insurance shall be conclusive evidence of the company’s solvency and its sufficiency as a surety or guarantor. The presenting…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Ketchum v. . EdwardsNew York Court of Appeals · 1897
- People Ex Rel. Day v. . BergenNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
- Ziegfeld v. NorworthAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1911
- In re NoyesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1902
- Oakley v. CokaleteAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1897
3Cited by17 opinions
- Hodous v. HodousNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1949
- Holtzman v. BeattyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1983
- Board of Education of City School District v. PisaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1976
- People v. BaltAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1970
- In Re WillisSupreme Court of Alabama · 1941
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.