Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Hartshorn

The facts leading to the present suit are set forth in Smith v. McCluskey, 254 Mich. 145. Defendant Harry H. Hartshorn had been one of two personal sureties on a bond given by C. E. McCluskey, as testamentary trustee, for the use and benefit of Arthur A. Hartshorn. As set forth in the opinion in the former case, Harry Hartshorn asked to be relieved from this obligation and McCluskey, on July 12, 1927, filed a new bond with the Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland as surety. Mc-Cluskey subsequently defaulted, and suit was brought by the probate judge for the benefit of Arthur A. Hartshorn…