Ætna Indemnity Co. v. Ladd
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Oregon. The IEtna Indemnity Company, the plaintiff In error, a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Connecticut, having among other powers that of prosecuting a general surety business, and, as surety, to execute all classes of bonds and undertakings, including contractors’ bonds, had prior to March, 1902, complied with the laws of the states of Washington and Oregon regulating foreign…
Read the full summary
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Oregon. The IEtna Indemnity Company, the plaintiff In error, a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Connecticut, having among other powers that of prosecuting a general surety business, and, as surety, to execute all classes of bonds and undertakings, including contractors’ bonds, had prior to March, 1902, complied with the laws of the states of Washington and Oregon regulating foreign surety companies, and, through its agents, Clemens & O’Bryan, of Portland, Or., was engaged in the surety business in both…
1Opinion of the CourtGilbert, Circuit Judge
It is assigned as, ejror that the trial, court permitted the witness Clemens to testify that the money received from the defendants in error was- paid out for the benefit of the plaintiff in error on contracts for which it had become surety, and which had been assigned to it. It is urged that the contracts had been assigned merely as security- for an advancement of $6,000 by Sudden & Christensen to thé Hardy Shipbuilding Company, and for no other purpose. It is true that the assignment, in its terms, recites that it was made as security for the payment of said sum, of $6,,000. But from and…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- The Distilled SpiritsSupreme Court of the United States · 1871
- Elliott v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1893
- Cruzan v. SmithIndiana Supreme Court · 1872
- Montgomery Furniture Co. v. HardawaySupreme Court of Alabama · 1893
- Union Hide & Leather Co. v. WoodleyIllinois Supreme Court · 1874
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Lyons Milling Co. v. Goffe & Carkener, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1931
- Lamb v. General Associates, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1962
- Burch v. Southern Pacific Co.Nevada Supreme Court · 1909
- Daniel v. PappasCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1926
- Norfolk Nat. Bank of C. and T. v. Commissioner of Int. Rev.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1933
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.