Suretyship

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

• Gerstner Elec., Inc. v. Am. Ins. Co.
  520 F.2d 790· 8th Cir.· 1975-08-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the surety's request to withhold payments was justified and not a wrongful interference with the contractor's contract, as it acted to protect its own interests and fulfill its bond obligations.
• ST. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Tennefos Constr. Co., Inc.
  396 F.2d 623· 8th Cir.· 1968-06-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the contract bond issued by St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company covered Tennefos's loss from Cox's failure to pay bank loans, as the bond and related agreements must be read together and interpreted broadly.
• Developers Small Bus. Inv. Corp. v. Hoeckle
  395 F.2d 80· 9th Cir.· 1968-05-13 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the dismissal was improper because the plaintiff should have been allowed to amend its complaint, and that under both New Jersey and California law, a holder of an absolute guaranty of payment may proceed against the guarantor without first exhausting security
• Laurentide Fin. Corp. of Am. v. Capitol Prods. Corp.
  392 F.2d 444· 3d Cir.· 1968-04-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the guarantor's liability was conditioned on the lessor delivering the equipment, and since the equipment was not delivered, the guarantor had no obligation.
• The United States v. Markowitz Bros. (Delaware), Inc.
  383 F.2d 595· 9th Cir.· 1967-09-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Territory of Guam's statute imposing a 12% penalty and attorney's fees was not applicable to surety contracts under the Miller Act, as the statute's language did not extend to sureties.
• ST. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. United States
  370 F.2d 870· 5th Cir.· 1967-01-05 ·cited 4×
  A surety is subrogated not only to the rights of the creditor but also to the rights of the principal against third parties, allowing recovery from the surviving partner of the partnership that benefited from the imported goods.
• Robert v. Rafter
  355 F.2d 185· 2d Cir.· 1966-01-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the amount in controversy did not exceed the $10,000 jurisdictional minimum, exclusive of interest and costs.
• In re Sherman Plastering Corp.
  346 F.2d 492· 2d Cir.· 1965-05-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a set-off is permissible under Section 68 of the Bankruptcy Act even when the debt owed to the bankrupt is joint and the debt owed by the bankrupt is individual, provided equity permits and no injustice would result.
• Solon Snowden v. The Franklin Nat'l Bank OF Long Island
  338 F.2d 995· 5th Cir.· 1964-12-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that oral assurances contradicting a written promissory note are inadmissible under Texas law and do not constitute a defense.
• Applefield v. Fid. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n OF Tampa
  137 So. 2d 259· Fla. 2d DCA· 1962-01-26 ·cited 4×
  In this mortgage foreclosure case, a lender obtained a subordination agreement from a fee owner, making the owner's reversionary interest junior to the lender's mortgages on a leasehold property. When the lessee defaulted, the court upheld the subordination agreement and the fore
• Corn Constr. Co. v. AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co. OF Hartford
  295 F.2d 685· 10th Cir.· 1961-09-14 ·cited 4×
  A performance bond for off-site subdivision improvements does not cover claims for labor and materials by a subcontractor unless the bond expressly so provides or statutory requirements for public works are met, and a surety cannot claim subrogation or exoneration when it has not
• W. Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Eusebius J. Biggs
  217 F.2d 163· 7th Cir.· 1954-10-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the original suit was a proper equitable action for exoneration, not a Miller Act claim, and thus the district court had jurisdiction.
• Peerless Cas. Co. v. Weymouth Gardens, Inc.
  215 F.2d 362· 1st Cir.· 1954-08-24 ·cited 4×
  A surety is not excused from liability when the principal's inability to complete a contract is due to financial difficulties exacerbated by economic conditions, rather than true impossibility of performance.
• Luckenbach v. Pedrick
  214 F.2d 914· 2d Cir.· 1954-08-11 ·cited 4×
  Monthly payments made to a divorced wife by her husband's guarantor, which discharged the husband's alimony obligation under a divorce decree, are taxable income to the wife under Section 22(k) of the Internal Revenue Code, regardless of whether the husband could take a deduction
• N.Y. Terminal Warehouse Co. v. Burlington
  213 F.2d 340· 5th Cir.· 1954-05-31 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Trustee, by assignment from Commodity Credit Corporation, did not attain the status of a holder in due course and that the warehouse company's defenses were not precluded by the bankruptcy court proceedings.
• Madison Cnty. Farmers Ass'n v. Am. Emp'rs' Ins. Co.
  209 F.2d 581· 8th Cir.· 1954-01-26 ·cited 4×
  A compensated surety is still considered a surety under Arkansas law for the purpose of statutory defenses, and failure to comply with notice requirements exonerates the surety from liability.
• Owens v. William H. Banks Warehouses, Inc.
  202 F.2d 689· 5th Cir.· 1953-03-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the custodian's negligence was not excused by the warehousing company's alleged negligence, and that the sureties on the custodian's bond were personally liable despite their corporate roles.
• Prudence Realization Corp. v. Prudence-Bonds Corp.
  189 F.2d 931· 2d Cir.· 1951-04-23 ·cited 4×
  The court modified its prior opinion to correct a statement regarding the application of Bankruptcy Act § 57(h), clarifying that it does not apply when a creditor is secured by a surety's promise against the surety's bankrupt estate.
• Am. Sur. Co. of N.Y. v. Inmon
  187 F.2d 784· 5th Cir.· 1951-03-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the indemnity agreement was enforceable and not nullified by the cited Mississippi statutes, nor was it barred by a prior judgment.
• Glens Falls Indem. Co. v. Basich Bros. Const. Co.
  165 F.2d 649· 9th Cir.· 1948-02-03 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the appellee's payments for the subcontractor's account did not alter the surety's obligation or impair its rights, and that timely notice of default was given.
• Du Val's Estate v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
  152 F.2d 103· 9th Cir.· 1945-11-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the decedent's right of subrogation or contribution against the corporate maker and co-guarantor, existing at the time of her death, should be included in the gross estate for federal estate tax purposes.
• Rudd v. United States
  138 F.2d 745· 7th Cir.· 1943-11-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a third party who deposits cash bail for a defendant, without explicitly asserting ownership of the funds in court, cannot recover the funds when they are applied to the defendant's fines, absent specific statutory provisions or clear proof of ownership.
• The White Motor Co. v. Briles
  137 Fla. 268· Fla.· 1939-04-18 ·cited 4×
  White Motor Company sought to enforce guarantees executed by Briles Motor Company for conditional sales contracts. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the trial court's dismissal, holding that the guaranty's deficiency clause created an independent contract obligation separate fro
• State Solicitors' Co. v. Savage
  39 Fla. 703· Fla.· 1897-06-01 ·cited 4×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a circuit court decision dismissing a mortgage foreclosure action, holding that endorsements made on a promissory note when it was sold at a discount did not constitute a material alteration of the note that would release the mortgagors from the
• Flash v. Adnah C. Conn
  16 Fla. 428· Fla.· 1878-01-01 ·cited 4×
  Flash, Lewis & Co. sued stockholder Adnah C. Conn to enforce personal liability for a debt of the Pensacola Lumber Company (a New York corporation) in Florida court. The Florida Supreme Court reversed a demurrer, holding that stockholder liability under New York law is a contract
• Edward A. DeCottes and Wife v. Jeffers
  7 Fla. 284· Fla.· 1857-02-01 ·cited 4×
  DeCottes mortgaged real estate to Jeffers, Cothran & Co. to indemnify them as sureties on his bank note. When DeCottes defaulted on the note and failed to answer the bill for foreclosure, the trial court entered a decree pro confesso and foreclosed the mortgage. DeCottes appealed
• Mitchell v. Cotton
  3 Fla. 134· Fla.· 1850-01-01 ·cited 4×
  Mitchell sued on a joint promissory note executed by Doggett and Cotten in 1841 for $15,955 with 10% interest. Cotten was a surety for principal obligor Doggett. The court held that a subsequent secret agreement between Doggett and Mitchell for additional usurious interest (2.5%)
• Borey v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. OF Pittsburgh
  934 F.2d 30· 2d Cir.· 1991-05-29 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the preliminary injunction was improvidently granted because the surety failed to establish irreparable harm solely from the loss of its quia timet and exoneration rights.
• Unifirst Fed. Sav. Bank v. The Am. Ins. Co.
  905 F.2d 208· 8th Cir.· 1990-06-05 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the assignment of the right to proceeds of a letter of credit was valid under Arkansas law, and the presented documents were sufficient to show default, thus affirming the grant of summary judgment.
• United States v. Griffin
  707 F.2d 1477· D.C. Cir.· 1983-05-13 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the student borrower's defenses were preserved because they were raised prior to payment, making the scope of a regulation concerning the government's guarantor rights unnecessary to decide.
• Ling Elec., Inc. v. Fed. Ins. Co.
  406 F.2d 561· 4th Cir.· 1969-01-15 ·cited 3×
  The court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that Ling breached its subcontract and that its claims against the surety were defeated.
• Am. Cas. Co. of Reading v. Jules P. Bloch
  176 So. 2d 579· Fla. 3d DCA· 1965-01-26 ·cited 3×
  American Casualty Company appealed a summary judgment ruling in favor of Esther Bloch, who sought protection under Florida's constitutional exemption for wives' property. The court reversed, holding that Esther's indemnity agreement was not a promise to pay her husband's debt but
• Marks Bros. Paving Co. v. MT. Vernon Homes, Inc.
  156 So. 2d 787· Fla. 3d DCA· 1963-10-15 ·cited 3×
  Marks Brothers Paving sued Mt. Vernon Homes and four individual indorsers on promissory notes. The trial court ruled the individuals were guarantors rather than accommodation indorsers, but found no consideration for the guaranty. The appellate court reversed, holding that forbea
• Giles v. Fam. Fin. Serv., Inc.
  155 Fla. 506· Fla.· 1945-01-26 ·cited 3×
  The court held that an accommodation maker of a note secured by a wage assignment is considered a borrower under the statute, and the statute itself is constitutional.
• Brigman v. Bishop
  111 Fla. 504· Fla.· 1933-07-18 ·cited 3×
  In this mortgage foreclosure case, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed a deficiency decree against the original mortgagor and grantee assumors. The court held that a mortgagee may pursue both the original mortgagor and assuming grantees as principal debtors unless the mortgagee ha
• Powell v. Beatty
  110 Fla. 3· Fla.· 1933-04-29 ·cited 3×
  This case concerns the liability of a surety on a note executed by a married woman. The court held that the surety remains liable even if the principal (the married woman) is not, because the surety's obligation is considered independent in such cases.
• Fort Pierce Bank & Tr. Co. v. Smith
  108 Fla. 313· Fla.· 1933-02-17 ·cited 3×
  Fort Pierce Bank & Trust Company sued E. E. Smith to recover on a promissory note executed by Moody and negotiated to Smith before maturity. The case turns on whether Smith accepted a deed from Moody as full satisfaction of the debt or merely as a means to facilitate a sale of th
• Perkins v. United States
  105 La. 752· S.D. Fla.· 2018-09-06 ·cited 2×
• Micky Arison & NationsBank, N.A. v. Cobb P'rs
  807 So. 2d 101· Fla. 3d DCA· 2002-01-16 ·cited 2×
  Arison and NationsBank appealed a summary judgment ruling requiring them to indemnify Pan Am's shareholders after Arison paid NationsBank $5.4 million following Pan Am's bankruptcy. The court held that the indemnitors had no obligation because the bankruptcy proceeds should have
• Preferred Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Nichols
  682 So. 2d 585· Fla. 1st DCA· 1996-10-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the general attorney fee statute (§ 627.428) applies to sureties on guardianship bonds, but the surety's liability is limited to the bond's penal sum.
• Ferris v. Haymore
  967 F.2d 946· 4th Cir.· 1992-06-09 ·cited 2×
  The Federal Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act allows only one statutory damage award per plaintiff, even with multiple transferors involved in odometer fraud.
• Universal Bonding Ins. Co. v. Gittens & Sprinkle Enters., Inc.
  960 F.2d 366· 3d Cir.· 1992-04-02 ·cited 2×
  Monies owed to a contractor by state and municipal agencies are not trust funds until paid to the contractor, but once paid, they are subject to the New Jersey Trust Fund Act for the benefit of laborers and materialmen. Federal agencies' contract balances are not subject to a tru
• The United States v. Reul
  959 F.2d 1572· Fed. Cir.· 1992-04-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the statute of limitations did not bar the government's suit for breach of the surety bonds, but vacated and remanded the award of prejudgment interest against the surety, finding it improperly calculated from a date prior to demand on the surety.
• Int'l Fid. Ins. Co. v. United States
  949 F.2d 1042· 8th Cir.· 1991-11-27 ·cited 2×
  A surety's equitable right of subrogation to progress payments arises at the contractor's default, not at the execution of the surety bond, and thus its priority over a federal tax lien depends on the timing of the default relative to the tax lien filing.
• Tremack Co. v. Fed. Ins. Co.
  569 So. 2d 1355· Fla. 3d DCA· 1990-11-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a claimant seeking recovery on a payment bond, who furnishes materials and hires other workers, is not a 'laborer' exempt from the statutory notice requirement.
• Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. The United States
  909 F.2d 495· Fed. Cir.· 1990-07-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the government's release of retainage was not a material departure from the construction contract and did not prejudice the surety, thus the surety was not discharged from its obligations under the performance bond.
• Ransom v. The United States
  900 F.2d 242· Fed. Cir.· 1990-04-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that no express or implied-in-fact contract arose between the government and the surety, thus the government owed no contractual duties that could have been breached.
• White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Smith Plumbing Co., Inc.
  856 F.2d 1301· 9th Cir.· 1988-09-02 ·cited 2×
  The Ninth Circuit held that the district court erred in granting a preliminary injunction against a state court proceeding, as the state court had jurisdiction over the surety and the injunction improperly anticipated future disputes and infringed on federal policy.
• Credit Alliance Corp. v. Campbell
  845 F.2d 725· 7th Cir.· 1988-04-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a defendant seeking relief from a default judgment must present a meritorious defense, and that the defendant's arguments regarding consideration, revocation, and discharge did not constitute a meritorious defense under Indiana law.
• United States Ex Rel. Carlisle Constr. Co. v. Coastal Structures, Inc.
  689 F. Supp. 1092· M.D. Fla.· 1988-03-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that transportation and return charges, as well as post-termination rental payments, were recoverable under the Miller Act because they were necessary for performance and contemplated by the parties, and plaintiff reasonably mitigated damages.