Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Knutson v. Metallic Slab Form Co.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Decided August 19, 1942No. 10054Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partHutcheson, Circuit Judge
On the original submission of this cause I was of the opinion that the changes in the contract made by Knutson on July 27th, under his oral agreement with Metallic, particularly the changes in the terms of payment,1 would, nothing else appearing, have effected a release of the surety. I thought though that the surety’s letter of July 21st, denying liability, was in effect an anticipatory breach of its agreement which I incorrectly assumed was an agreement not merely of indemnity but guaranteeing performance, and therefore a release of Knutson from further compliance with the terms of the…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- United States v. FreelSupreme Court of the United States · 1902
- Fort Worth Independent School Dist. v. Ætna Casualty & Surety Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1931
- Standard Accident Insurance v. BlytheTexas Supreme Court · 1937
- Employer's Liability Assurance Corp. v. Trane Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1942
- Standard Accident Insurance v. BearSupreme Court of Florida · 1938
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.