Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Hibbler
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Wayne; Hally, J. Assumpsit by the Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland against William H. Hibbler and Frank B. Hibbler for a loss sustained under an indemnity bond. Judgment for defendants. Plaintiff brings error.
1Opinion of the CourtKuhn, J.
The defendant William H. Hibbler, a building contractor in the city of Detroit, being required in the conduct of his business to furnish contractors’ bonds, made an arrangement with the plaintiff company to execute such bonds for him as surety, and if the company suffered loss it was to be reimbursed by him and Frank B. Hibbler, his brother. In February, 1906, the plaintiff executed a bond as surety for William H. Hibbler in favor of William H. J. McPharlin and wife, with whom Hibbler had made a building contract to build a double frame house to be completed by May 1, 1906. Hibbler defaulted…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Lamoreaux v. CrevelingMichigan Supreme Court · 1895
- Cragin v. GardnerMichigan Supreme Court · 1887
- McPharlin v. Fidelity & Deposit Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1910
- Holcomb v. SayersMichigan Supreme Court · 1912
3Cited by2 opinions
- Riggs v. New Jersey Fidelity & Plate Glass Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1928
- Title Guaranty & Surety Co. v. RoehmMichigan Supreme Court · 1921