Legal Opinion
Karsh v. Fidelity Union Casualty Co.
California Court of Appeal
Decided January 8, 1932No. Docket No. 6974PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BISHOP, J., pro tem.
The defendant corporation appeals from a judgment entered against it on a bond executed on its behalf by a Mr. Frederic, its attorney-in-fact. The judgment is attacked on several grounds, which may be summed up in these. The bond by its terms is not a binding obligation; its execution by Frederic does not bind the appellant. With neither of these propositions did the trial court agree, and neither do we.
Much of the situation, out of which the transaction in question grew, is given us in a sketchy fashion, yet sufficiently in full for the purposes of this appeal. Certain…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Davenport v. County of DodgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Rhea v. StateNebraska Supreme Court · 1901
- United States, ex rel. Fidelity Nat. Bank v. RundleCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1900
- Courand v. VollmerTexas Supreme Court · 1868
- Pratt & Co. v. Langston Mercantle Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1905
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- City of Bakersfield v. West Park Home Owners Assn. and FriendsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
- Anderson v. Fidelity Union Casualty Co.California Court of Appeal · 1934