Legal Opinion
Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Redfield
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided August 24, 1925No. 4490PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtGilbert, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). Tbe principal contention of the surety company is that it was error to deny its motion for an instructed verdict in its f'a.vor. Upon some of the facts the evidence was conflicting. The defendant in error resided in California. During the year 1921 he was represented by Ms brother, who resided at Burley, Idaho, to whom he had given a power of attorney to execute a bond to the surety company to secure it against liability on its undertaking on the appeal. Neither ho nor his brother had any control over the certificate of deposit issued to the clerk of the…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Delaware County Commissioners v. Diebold Safe & Lock Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Barney Ex Rel. Woodhull v. SaundersSupreme Court of the United States · 1854
- Estate of LawPennsylvania Orphans' Court, Philadelphia County · 1891
- Williams v. WilliamsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1882
- Appeal of BaerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. PorterCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1951
- Harvey Gene Fowler v. United States of America, (Two Cases). Haskell D. Scott v. United States of America, (Two Cases)Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1956
- Giannone v. United States Steel Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1956
- Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York v. BrightmanCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1931
- Fuller v. King (Two Cases)Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1953
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.