Legal Opinion
Southern Pac. Co. v. Globe Indemnity Co.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided August 8, 1927No. 334PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSwan, Circuit Judge
(after stating the 'facts as above). Among several defenses raised by the surety at the trial was one involving the meaning of the bond. It was urged that the bond was intended to coyer only the anticipation of the final installment payable on El Estero and El Isleo. The language of the condition of the bond is, however, too broad to admit of this construction. . It recites the contract for the building of three ships; that payments are to be made as the work progresses, and the last payment after the final trial trip “by each ship”; that the principal desires to release a part of the moneys…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Comey v. . United Surety Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1916
- St John's College v. . &198tna Indemnity Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1911
- Bacigalupi v. Phoenix Building & Construction Co.California Court of Appeal · 1910
- Beaver Trust Co. v. MorganSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1918
- Taylor v. Continental Supply Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1926
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Pacific Employers Insurance v. City of BerkeleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984
- Six Companies of California v. Joint Highway Dist. No. 13Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1940
- United States v. KanterCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1943
- Hale County v. American Indemnity Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1933
- Basile v. California Packing Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1928
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.