Suretyship

488 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Wyo. Constr. Co. v. W. Cas. & Sur. Co.
  275 F.2d 97· 10th Cir.· 1960-01-26 ·cited 24×
  The court held that a surety seeking indemnity from its principal can recover costs incurred in completing the contract, even if performance dates were extended or advances were made, provided the principal's own actions caused the default and the surety acted in good faith. The
• Sauder v. Dittmar
  118 F.2d 524· 10th Cir.· 1941-02-27 ·cited 24×
  The court held that modifications to the original contract did not release Sauder from his liability as a surety, and that the contract was not abandoned as to him. Furthermore, the court found no anticipatory breach justifying acceleration of future payments.
• May v. Gamble
  14 Fla. 467· Fla.· 1874-04-01 ·cited 23×
  A promissory note is not a payment of a pre-existing debt unless there is an express agreement to receive it in payment or circumstances from which such an agreement can be inferred; here, the new notes were never delivered to or accepted by the plaintiff as payment, and the two
• United States v. Vahlco Corp.
  720 F.2d 885· 5th Cir.· 1983-12-09 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the future advances clause in the deed of trust unambiguously secured the subsequent line of credit, and that Vahlco's collateral impairment defense was unavailable to a note maker, while Magnum's estoppel defense against the SBA was barred. Therefore, the dir
• United States v. H. R. Morgan, Inc.
  542 F.2d 262· 5th Cir.· 1976-11-12 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1352, that the payment bond covered equipment rentals and repairs, and that the Miller Act statute of limitations and notice requirements did not apply. However, the award of attorneys' fees was improper.
• United States for the Use & Benefit of H & S Indus., Inc. v. F. D. Rich Co., Inc.
  525 F.2d 760· 7th Cir.· 1975-10-16 ·cited 22×
  The court held that federal law governs the waiver of appeal rights and that a contractual provision shifting the risk of access difficulties to the subcontractor (Cass) meant Rich was not responsible for delays caused by lack of temporary roads. The court also found errors in th
• Fewox v. The Tallahassee Bank & Tr. Co.
  249 So. 2d 55· Fla. 1st DCA· 1971-06-01 ·cited 22×
  A guarantor of loans remains liable even after severing his interest in the borrowing corporation and is not discharged by the bank's extensions of the due dates, because the guarantee was a continuing guaranty of the underlying loans (not merely the notes) and the guarantor did
• Centraal Stikstof Verkoopkantoor, N.V. v. Ala. State Docks Dep't & Gulf Am. Fire & Cas. Co.
  415 F.2d 452· 5th Cir.· 1969-08-15 ·cited 22×
  A surety can be held liable on its bond even if the principal is immune from suit due to sovereign immunity, provided the surety agreement was not procured by fraud and the principal's immunity does not prevent federal relief.
• Rocky Mountain Tool & Mach. Co., Inc. v. Tecon Corp.
  371 F.2d 589· 10th Cir.· 1966-12-28 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the jury's verdicts, though procedurally unusual, were not inconsistent and were supported by the evidence, and that the trial court properly corrected an erroneous interest award.
• Mass. Bonding & Ins. Co. v. Julius Seidel Lumber Co.
  279 F.2d 861· 8th Cir.· 1960-07-01 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the fidelity insurance contract did not provide for cumulative liability, and the surety's maximum liability was limited to the largest single amount scheduled for the employee.
• Basich Bros. Const. Co. v. United States
  159 F.2d 182· 9th Cir.· 1946-12-26 ·cited 22×
  Duque & Frazzini were subcontractors within the meaning of the Miller Act because they performed and took from the prime contractor a specific part of the labor or material requirements of the original contract.
• Ingo v. Koch
  127 F.2d 667· 2d Cir.· 1942-04-15 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the action against the sheriff and his deputies was barred by the one-year statute of limitations because their actions, even if malicious, were performed in their official capacity.
• Williams v. Keyes
  125 F.2d 208· 5th Cir.· 1942-01-30 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the removal of the case to federal court was proper, and the subsequent bringing in of third-party defendants did not divest the court of jurisdiction. The judgments entered were supported by the bond and indemnity agreements.
• Rubie C. Conner v. Nena K. Elliott
  79 Fla. 513· Fla.· 1920-01-01 ·cited 22×
  A Florida court upheld the validity and enforceability of a mortgage on a married woman's separate property executed to secure her husband's debt, holding that the law of the state where the land is situated (Florida) governs the validity of real property mortgages, not the law o
• Staley v. A. B. Hamilton et ux.
  19 Fla. 275· Fla.· 1882-06-01 ·cited 22×
  This case clarifies that under Florida law, a married woman's separate statutory property cannot be charged with a debt unless the charge is made through a legally executed deed or mortgage, or the debt directly benefits her separate estate. The court reversed a lower court's dec
• Cochrane v. Town of Boca Raton
  112 Fla. 177· Fla.· 1933-10-03 ·cited 21×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a trial court's dismissal of a liquidator's action against the Town of Boca Raton for payment on certificates of indebtedness issued for street improvements. The court held that the town's obligation under the certificates was primary or suretys
• Filner v. Shapiro
  633 F.2d 139· 2d Cir.· 1980-12-29 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the agent's unauthorized use of the principal's funds to purchase a certificate of deposit in the corporation's name, and subsequently using that CD to pay the corporation's debt, constituted conversion and breach of contract.
• Fed's., Inc. v. Edmonton Inv. Co.
  555 F.2d 577· 6th Cir.· 1977-04-11 ·cited 20×
  A debtor's unexpired lease of real property remains an executory contract in a Chapter XI proceeding, and its liabilities are not discharged unless affirmatively rejected by the debtor.
• United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. N. Am. Steel Corp.
  335 So. 2d 18· Fla. 2d DCA· 1976-07-07 ·cited 20×
  United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company (USF&G), as surety on a performance bond, appealed a judgment requiring it to pay NASCO for fabricated steel piping. The court reversed, holding that a buyer's failure to reject goods within 30 days does not preclude it from claiming br
• McGUIRE v. Consol. Elec. Supply, Inc.
  329 So. 2d 411· Fla. 4th DCA· 1976-04-02 ·cited 20×
  A materialman who furnished supplies to a subcontractor sought to foreclose a mechanic's lien against property that had been conveyed to a corporation. The court reversed judgment against the original owners and their surety bond company, holding that the actual property owner (t
• United States v. Samson Eisner (Principal) & United Bonding Ins. Co. (Surety)
  323 F.2d 38· 6th Cir.· 1963-09-30 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the filing of a petition for certiorari does not automatically stay proceedings in the district court, and the validity of the judgment on the bond forfeiture depends on whether Eisner was directed to surrender and refused. The court reserved judgment pending
• Heine v. United States
  135 F.2d 914· 6th Cir.· 1943-06-01 ·cited 20×
  A cash deposit made by sureties in lieu of a bail bond cannot be applied to satisfy a criminal fine assessed against the defendant if the defendant appeared as required and the sureties' funds were used.
• Fletcher Scott v. The Nat'l City Bank of Tampa
  107 Fla. 810· Fla.· 1931-11-30 ·cited 20×
  Fletcher Scott, an accommodation indorser on a promissory note executed by Scott Grocery Company to National City Bank of Tampa, sought equitable relief against the bank and an assignee for the benefit of creditors. The Florida Supreme Court held that Scott, as a surety, had suff
• State v. Barnes
  25 Fla. 298· Fla.· 1889-01-01 ·cited 20×
  In this original mandamus proceeding, the Florida Supreme Court declined to compel the Comptroller to approve Sheriff-elect Moody's bond, holding that mandamus does not lie to control the discretionary judgment of officials when they exercise that discretion deliberately and in g
• Marinelli v. Weaver
  187 So. 2d 690· Fla. 2d DCA· 1966-06-08 ·cited 19×
  The Marinellis appealed a judgment holding them liable as accommodation makers on a promissory note for the purchase price of an auto parts business. The court affirmed, finding the Marinellis clearly signed the note in their individual capacity and remained liable despite claimi
• Brown & Root, Inc. v. Gifford-Hill & Co., Inc.
  319 F.2d 65· 5th Cir.· 1963-06-19 ·cited 19×
  The court held that an oral promise to pay the debt of a third person, which constitutes a guaranty rather than a primary obligation, is unenforceable under the Louisiana statute of frauds.
• Merchs. Bonding Co. (Mutual) v. City OF Melbourne
  832 So. 2d 184· Fla. 5th DCA· 2002-11-22 ·cited 18×
  Merchants Bonding Company, a surety on a performance bond, appealed the denial of attorney's fees in a construction dispute between the City of Melbourne and Continental Acreage Development Company. The court affirmed the trial judge's discretionary decision to deny fees to all p
• United States v. Apodaca
  666 F.2d 89· 5th Cir.· 1982-01-04 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of jury selection non-compliance and that any errors in admitting summary testimony or prosecutorial remarks were harmless.
• United States ex rel. Westinghouse Elec. v. James Stewart Co.
  336 F.2d 777· 9th Cir.· 1964-09-01 ·cited 18×
  A materialman to a subcontractor in a Miller Act case can be estopped from claiming the Act's protection if their conduct leads the prime contractor to reasonably rely on assurances that cause detriment.
• Christenson v. Diversified Builders Inc.
  331 F.2d 992· 10th Cir.· 1964-05-06 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the appellant waived his right to a jury trial on the counterclaim by failing to make a timely demand, and the surety claim, which depended on the counterclaim's adjudication, was therefore also not subject to a jury trial as a matter of right.
• JOE Heaston Tractor & Implement Co. v. Sec. Acceptance Corp.
  243 F.2d 196· 10th Cir.· 1957-04-05 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the guaranty agreement was absolute and unconditional, and the Finance Company's failure to file chattel mortgages did not release the Guarantor.
• Pierce Consulting Eng'g Co. & Henry Friedman v. City OF Burlington
  221 F.2d 607· 2d Cir.· 1955-04-04 ·cited 18×
• Glenn v. Am. Sur. Co.
  160 F.2d 977· 6th Cir.· 1947-04-01 ·cited 18×
  The dissenting judge would reverse the judgment and allow the United States' tax lien to be paid from retained funds before the surety receives interest on its payment.
• Hardee v. Bennett
  105 Fla. 282· Fla.· 1932-04-20 ·cited 18×
  In a mortgage foreclosure dispute, the Florida Supreme Court held that a mortgagor cannot delay foreclosure proceedings by a mortgagee through a plea based on separate litigation between the mortgagor and subsequent grantees who assumed the mortgage, absent the mortgagee's partic
• Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Polk Cnty. v. The AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co. & Barton Malow Co.
  604 So. 2d 850· Fla. 2d DCA· 1992-07-17 ·cited 17×
  The Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District, reversed a trial court's dismissal of a counterclaim against a surety company. The appellate court held that the statute of limitations defense, based on a bond provision, did not appear on the face of the counterclaim itself
• Commercial Standard Ins. Co. v. Bryce St. Apts., Ltd.
  703 F.2d 904· 5th Cir.· 1983-04-25 ·cited 17×
  The court held that HUD succeeded to the mortgagee's duties under the building loan agreement, and the surety succeeded to the subcontractors' rights, allowing recovery of retainage.
• Dev. Corp. OF Am., Inc. v. United Bonding Ins. Co.
  413 F.2d 823· 5th Cir.· 1969-06-25 ·cited 17×
  The court held that a photographic copy of a bond was admissible despite the best evidence rule when its genuineness was admitted, and that a slight date discrepancy between the bond and the contract did not invalidate the bond.
• North v. Albee
  155 Fla. 515· Fla.· 1945-01-30 ·cited 17×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that executors of John Ringling's estate could pursue subrogation against F. H. Albee for funds the liquidator of Bank of Sarasota had arbitrarily taken from Ringling's deposits to pay Albee's share of a joint judgment, despite the action being file
• Sneeden v. City OF Marion
  64 F.2d 721· 7th Cir.· 1933-04-25 ·cited 17×
  The dissenting opinion argues that a bank's pledge of assets to secure public deposits is not against public policy in Illinois, even if not statutorily authorized, provided the bank is solvent and no fraud is involved. Furthermore, even if such a pledge is ultra vires, the bank
• Love v. Gibson
  2 Fla. 598· Fla.· 1849-01-01 ·cited 17×
  Gibson sued Love for contribution toward a judgment Gibson paid on an executor's bond where both were sureties. The Florida Supreme Court held that the judgment against Gibson is conclusive (res adjudicata) against Love because Love had notice of the original suit and failed to d
• Auto Owners Ins. v. Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co.
  227 F. Supp. 2d 1248· M.D. Fla.· 2002-09-12 ·cited 16×
  Comprehensive General Liability (CGL) policies do not cover the costs to repair or replace defective construction, even if performed by a subcontractor, as such coverage is considered a business risk, not an occurrence of damage.
• H & S Corp. v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co.
  667 So. 2d 393· Fla. 1st DCA· 1995-12-19 ·cited 16×
  In this complex construction dispute arising from a wastewater collection system project in Cross City, Florida, the court affirmed the trial court's finding that H & S Corporation materially breached its contract with surety USF & G, rejected H & S's negligent misrepresentation
• Reliance Ins. Co. v. Sweeney Corp.
  792 F.2d 1137· D.C. Cir.· 1986-04-21 ·cited 16×
  The court held that both a party and its attorney can be sanctioned for pursuing a frivolous appeal, including awarding the appellee's attorney's fees.
• United States v. Bellard
  674 F.2d 330· 5th Cir.· 1982-04-23 ·cited 16×
  The United States has a common-law right of indemnification from student borrowers who default on federally insured loans, which accrues upon the government's payment of the lender's claim.
• The Winston Corp. v. Cont'l Cas. Co.
  508 F.2d 1298· 6th Cir.· 1975-01-17 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the April 7 agreement was not a novation that discharged the surety, and the failure to provide seven days' notice was an insubstantial breach that did not prejudice the surety.
• Clarence E. Morris, Inc. v. Vitek
  412 F.2d 1174· 9th Cir.· 1969-06-17 ·cited 16×
  The court held that federal jurisdiction was lacking because complete diversity of citizenship did not exist between the plaintiff and all named defendants, and the claims were not separate and independent for removal purposes.
• United Bonding Ins. Co. v. Tuggle
  216 So. 2d 80· Fla. 2d DCA· 1968-11-22 ·cited 16×
  The court held that Florida Statute § 903.14 requires the indemnity affidavit to be filed simultaneously with the bail bond undertaking.
• A & T Motors, Inc. v. Roemelmeyer
  158 So. 2d 567· Fla. 3d DCA· 1963-12-10 ·cited 16×
  A & T Motors financed automobile inventory through Interstate Acceptance Corp. using floor-plan loans secured by vehicle titles. When the company's president issued worthless checks to obtain the titles back, Interstate sued A & T and its secretary Alvin Savage, who had signed an
• United States v. Harrison & Grimshaw Constr. Co.
  305 F.2d 363· 10th Cir.· 1962-06-15 ·cited 16×
  The dissenting judge believes that housing projects constructed under the Capehart Act are public works of the United States and thus subject to the Miller Act.
• United States for the Use & Benefit of J. A. Edwards & Co., Inc. v. Thompson Constr. Corp. & Standard Accident Ins. Co.
  273 F.2d 873· 2d Cir.· 1959-12-16 ·cited 16×
  A letter from a subcontractor to a prime contractor, requesting permission to assign payments to a materialman, does not constitute sufficient notice under the Miller Act to establish a claim against the prime contractor and its surety.