Central Surety & Ins. v. Bagley
District Court, S.D. California
1Opinion of the Court
HAZEL, District Judge.1
Upon carefully reading the bill, I have become satisfied that complainants were not mere contract creditors, as claimed by the objecting defendants. The gravamen of the bill arises from complainants’ liability under a surety bond, a so-called lender’s bond, by which complainants obligated themselves to advance $100,000, to construct and complete the apartment building and garages erected by the principals who are primary defendants herein and who agreed on their part to pay off the debts, claims, and liens arising from the construction. Their alleged failure so to do…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Mississippi Valley Trust Co. v. Railway Steel Spring Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1919
- Southwestern Surety Ins. v. WellsDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1914
- Sanford v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1902
- Roberts v. American Bonding & Trust Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1899
- Mercantile Trust Co. v. BinfordDistrict Court, N.D. Texas · 1925
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Kelleam v. Maryland Casualty Co. of BaltimoreSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Kelleam v. Maryland Casualty Co. of BaltimoreCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1940