Borough of Totowa v. American Surety Co. of New York
Supreme Court of New Jersey
1DissentSchettiko, J.
I am in accord with the majority view that the cost of reconstructing the records is an expense for which the surety became liable when Hawthorne failed to discharge his duties with respect to the books entrusted to his care. However, I cannot agree that the surety here is liable for the expenses incurred by the Borough in determining the amount of the shortages where they are independent of the restoration costs.
Expenses incurred in auditing (Museum of Fine Arts v. American Bonding Co., 211 Mass. 124, 97 N. E. 633 (Sup. Jud. Ct. 1912)) or investigating (United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Douglas' TrusteeCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1909
- Clark County v. HowardSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1931
- Museum of Fine Arts v. American Bonding Co. of BaltimoreMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1912
- Edmunds-Bouvier Savings & Loan Ass'n v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1957
- Banking Commission v. National Surety Corp.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1943
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.