Legal Opinion · Dissent

Federal Deposit Insurance v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Decided April 13, 1970No. 27254Published

1DissentGodbold, Circuit Judge

I dissent on the issue of notice to the sureties.

I agree with my colleagues that the inquiry as to timeliness is one of fixing the point in time at which the bank ei*740ther discovered there had been fraud or received information sufficient to require it to investigate further. I agree that a mere suspicion of wrongdoing is not enough.

The wrongful acts sued on as breaches of the bond were alleged to be “certain dishonest, fraudulent and/or criminal acts” committed by Steiner, Morris, Garrett, and Gallaher. The complaint set out with considerable specificity the various acts done by each of these…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. The Hidden Splendor Mining Company v. General Insurance Company of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1966
  2. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Bank of ThorsbyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1931
  3. London & Lancashire Indemnity Co. v. Peoples Nat. Bank & Trust Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1932
  4. Maryland Casualty Co. v. American Trust Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1934
  5. Ætna Casualty & Surety Co. v. AustinCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1926

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

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

Powered by the Exa API