United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Fultz
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Ouachita Circuit Court. Charles W. Smith, Judge. STATEMENT BY THE COURT. Appellee, D. W. Fultz, recovered a judgment for $2,500 in .the Circuit Court of Ouachita County against the Minneapolis Fire & Marine Insurance Company on a policy of insurance to him upon his property which was destroyed by fire, and on appeal to this court the judgment was affirmed. 72 Ark. 365. Pending the appeal to this court, appellee brought this suit against said insurance company and…
Read the full summary
Appeal from Ouachita Circuit Court. Charles W. Smith, Judge. STATEMENT BY THE COURT. Appellee, D. W. Fultz, recovered a judgment for $2,500 in .the Circuit Court of Ouachita County against the Minneapolis Fire & Marine Insurance Company on a policy of insurance to him upon his property which was destroyed by fire, and on appeal to this court the judgment was affirmed. 72 Ark. 365. Pending the appeal to this court, appellee brought this suit against said insurance company and the appellants herein as sureties on a bond executed to the State of Arkansas, as required by statute, conditioned for…
1Opinion of the Court
McCulloch, J.,
(after stating the facts.) It is contended by appellants that they are not liable, for the reason that the bond was not in force when the fire occurred. This is the sole question presented by the appeal.
The statute on the subject which was in force when the bond was executed is found in Sandels & Hill’s Digest (having since been amended), and is as follows:
“Section 4124. All fire, life and accident insurance companies now or hereafter doing business in this State shall, in addition to the duties and requirements now prescribed by law, annually give a bond to the State of…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Farrar and Brown v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1831
- McMullen v. Winfield Building & Loan Ass'nSupreme Court of Kansas · 1902
- Bartlett v. WheelerIllinois Supreme Court · 1902
- Hatch v. Inhabitants of AttleboroughMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1867
- State ex rel. Chatham National Bank v. FinnSupreme Court of Missouri · 1889
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Trinity Portland Cement Co. v. Lion Bonding & Surety Co.Texas Commission of Appeals · 1921
- Love v. CahnSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
- Farmer v. RutherfordSupreme Court of Kansas · 1932
- American Insurance v. HaynieSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
- Merchants' National Bank v. CresseySupreme Court of Iowa · 1914
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.