Legal Opinion
Terry v. Water Improvement Dist. No. 5
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided February 2, 1937No. 25244PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtWelch, J.
The plaintiff had in its employ one Terry who had charge of collecting water bills and assessments for plaintiff, and it was his duty to account for and pay over to plaintiff all such collections.
The defendant indemnity company, for the required consideration or premium, had guaranteed the fidelity - of the employee, binding itself to pay plaintiff such loss as plaintiff might sustain through larceny or embezzlement by Terry.
The employment of Terry terminated and an audit of his accounts showed a shortage of $2,904.90, which was immediately called to the attention of the defendant indemnity…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Oklahoma Sash & Door Co. v. American Bonding Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1915
- Larrabee v. Title Guaranty & Surety Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1915
- Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Neiman-Marcus Co.Texas Commission of Appeals · 1926
- First National Bank v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1927
3Cited by4 opinions
- Rogers v. JonesSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1944
- Gentry v. SmithSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1962
- Pennsylvania Fire Insurance Co. v. FlamingSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1967
- In re Adoption of the 2005 Revisions to the Oklahoma Uniform Jury Instructions—CriminalCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 2005