Legal Opinion

Maxwell v. Southern Fidelity Mutual Insurance

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided June 8, 1940PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtClarkson, J.

The only question necessary to be considered to determine this appeal is; Did the extension of time of payment of the amount due and payable from A. W. Couch, principal, on 10 July, 1936, and the taking of said chattel mortgage in the manner and form aforesaid, operate to discharge the defendant surety of its liability? We think not.

The defendant is a paid corporate surety. In Loan Assn. v. Davis, 192 N. C., 108 (113), the following is written as a “well-settled” principle: “The law does not have the same solicitude for corporations engaged in giving indemnity bonds for profit as it does for…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Guaranty Co. v. Pressed Brick Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1903
  2. Rudasill v. . FallsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1885
  3. Brimmer v. M. H. Brimmer & Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1917
  4. Hall v. . GiessellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1920
  5. Jones v. Bank of Chapel HillSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1939

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. American Surety Co. v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 1942
  2. Cincinnati Insurance v. Centech Building Corp.District Court, M.D. North Carolina · 2003
  3. Henry Angelo & Sons, Inc. v. Property Development Corp., Riverside AssociatesCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1983

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API