Labadie v. United States
United States Court of Claims
The Reporters’ statement of the case: The allegations of the defendants’ plea of set-off and the record of the two cases are stated in the opinion of the court. It is hardly necessary to cite authorities to the fact that the contract of suretyship is to be strictly construed. “Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication beyond the terms of his contract.
Read the full summary
The Reporters’ statement of the case: The allegations of the defendants’ plea of set-off and the record of the two cases are stated in the opinion of the court. It is hardly necessary to cite authorities to the fact that the contract of suretyship is to be strictly construed. “Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent, and in the manner, and under the circumstances pointed out in his obligations, he is bound, and no further.” {Miller y.…
1Opinion of the Court
Nott, Oh. J.,
delivered the opinion of the court:
On the 27th October, 1886, the Secretary of the Interior made an award in an Indian depredation case by allowing the same and recommending it to Congress. The claim had been presented to the Department by William H. Moore and Will*375iam C. Mitchell, partners. Each partner signed the petition severally, and each made oath to it. While it was pending-before the Department William C. Mitchell died. His widow continued to prosecute it on behalf of both the surviving partner and the heirs or the next of kin of the deceased partner. When it was finally…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Semple v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1889
- Labadie v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1896