Suretyship

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

• Pac. Lining Co., Inc. v. Algernon-Blair Constr. Co. & United States Fid. & Guar. Co.
  812 F.2d 237· 5th Cir.· 1987-03-13 ·cited 2×
  The court certified a question to the Louisiana Supreme Court regarding whether 'pay when paid' clauses constitute suspensive conditions under Louisiana law, as this issue is dispositive of the appeals.
• United States for the Use & Benefit of Balboa Ins. Co. v. Algernon Blair, Inc.
  795 F.2d 404· 5th Cir.· 1986-07-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the SBA's involvement in financing litigation through its surety bond guarantee program does not violate public policy or constitute champerty, and that a valid assignment of a Miller Act claim grants the assignee standing to sue.
• Inryco, Inc. v. Eatherly Constr. Co. & Safeco Ins. Co. of Am.
  793 F.2d 767· 6th Cir.· 1986-06-19 ·cited 2×
  A material supplier to a subcontractor is not a protected party under performance and payment bonds for public highway projects, as they do not qualify as a subcontractor or remote subcontractor under Tennessee law.
• Gritz Harvestore, Inc. v. A.O. Smith Harvestore Prods., Inc.
  769 F.2d 1225· 7th Cir.· 1985-08-05 ·cited 2×
  A personal guaranty for a dealership's debts is limited to debts incurred during the dealership's existence and does not cover debts incurred after termination, even if the guaranty is absolute and unconditional.
• Mitacon Anstalt and Societe Choron Internationale v. F.I.A. Ins. Co.
  749 F.2d 175· 3d Cir.· 1984-12-06 ·cited 2×
  A compensated surety is not discharged from its obligation due to an immaterial alteration in the underlying contract that substitutes a new buyer, provided the alteration does not materially increase the surety's risk or cause it injury.
• Fid. & Deposit Co. OF Md. v. Bristol Steel & Iron Works, Inc.
  722 F.2d 1160· 4th Cir.· 1983-12-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that an express contract of indemnity governs the rights of the parties, and the surety's payment made in good faith to avoid disqualification from future work is recoverable from the principal, along with attorney's fees and interest.
• Yahn & McDONNELL, Inc. v. Farmers Bank OF the State OF Del.
  708 F.2d 104· 3d Cir.· 1983-05-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment, as unresolved factual issues exist regarding the plaintiff's holder in due course status and the bank's actions did not constitute valid payment on the certificate of deposit.
• Depositors Tr. Co. v. Slobusky
  692 F.2d 205· 1st Cir.· 1982-11-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in excluding evidence of a pretrial agreement not raised in the pleadings and did not err in finding the defendant liable on the note despite prior jury instructions that suggested exhaustion of claims against another party was r
• ST. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Mich. Nat'l Bank OF Detroit
  660 F.2d 196· 6th Cir.· 1981-09-23 ·cited 2×
  A surety, after paying a subcontractor and taking an assignment of the subcontractor's claim against a bank for untimely dishonor of a check, cannot recover from the bank if the subcontractor received full satisfaction and released the surety.
• ST. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. & Boston Ins. Co. v. Commodity Credit Corp.
  646 F.2d 1064· 5th Cir.· 1981-06-04 ·cited 2×
  Sureties are discharged from their obligations on bonds when the creditor impairs collateral or fails to disclose material risks unknown to the surety.
• United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Bass
  619 F.2d 1057· 5th Cir.· 1980-06-25 ·cited 2×
  Under Alabama law, state officials are not individually liable for conversion of state funds by their subordinates if the officials did not personally participate in or authorize the action, and conversion does not lie for non-identifiable funds in a debtor-creditor relationship.
• United States v. HUB City Volkswagen, Inc.
  625 F.2d 213· 9th Cir.· 1980-04-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in applying the parol evidence rule to bar evidence of an oral condition precedent to the effectiveness of personal loan guaranties.
• Alberding v. Brunzell
  601 F.2d 474· 9th Cir.· 1979-07-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Nevada four-year statute of limitations applied, and that the statutory interest rate, not the rate from the original contract, should apply to the contribution claim.
• Chicago Dist. Council OF Carpenters Health & Welf. Fund v. The Alan Scott Co.
  597 F.2d 1103· 7th Cir.· 1979-04-20 ·cited 2×
  A surety bond does not create an indebtedness owed by the surety to the principal debtor, and therefore is not subject to garnishment under Illinois law.
• McGRAW Edison Credit Corp. v. Motorola Commc'ns & Elecs., Inc.
  579 F.2d 885· 5th Cir.· 1978-09-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the repurchase agreements were not, as a matter of law, guaranty contracts, and thus summary judgment was inappropriate.
• Edward L. Nezelek, Inc. v. Concreform Co.
  351 So. 2d 1046· Fla. 4th DCA· 1977-02-11 ·cited 2×
• MacCULLEY v. Fid. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n OF Ocala & Century Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n of Ormond Beach
  335 So. 2d 327· Fla. 1st DCA· 1976-07-15 ·cited 2×
  The defendants' personal guarantee obligated them to pay only the next 10% of the $1,040,000 loan ($104,000 plus interest, costs, and reasonable attorney's fees), not the 30% deficiency assessed by the trial court. The guarantee agreement was unambiguous and clearly limited their
• United States v. Everett Monte Cristo Hotel, Inc.
  524 F.2d 127· 9th Cir.· 1975-10-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court erred by failing to properly consider the guarantors' defense of unfulfilled condition precedent and remanded for further proceedings.
• In re I. C. Herman & Co., Inc. v. Taub
  497 F.2d 1301· 2d Cir.· 1974-05-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that equitable principles, not solely statutory subrogation, govern the allowance of a customs broker's claim for advanced duties against an insolvent importer.
• United States v. Alva E. Kimrey & St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.
  489 F.2d 339· 8th Cir.· 1974-01-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a performance bond for the sale of surplus government property is not covered by the Miller Act and does not protect subcontractors, and that a defendant's appeal regarding jury instructions about insurance was procedurally deficient.
• In re Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. H. L. Rodger & BRO.
  444 F.2d 1077· 7th Cir.· 1971-06-29 ·cited 2×
  A third party who loans securities to a debtor to secure the debtor's debt is a surety, but is not discharged from liability unless the creditor's actions alter the principal debtor's obligation or impair the surety's rights.
• London Distrib. Co. v. Bastone
  244 So. 2d 550· Fla. 3d DCA· 1971-02-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff's second amended complaint sufficiently stated causes of action for both accommodation maker liability and breach of an indemnification agreement, making judgment on the pleadings improper.
• Ahrens Materials, Inc. v. J. D. Yaun Roofing Corp.
  227 So. 2d 87· Fla. 4th DCA· 1969-10-13 ·cited 2×
  A creditor is obligated by principles of equity to apply payments made by a debtor toward discharging the portion of debt guaranteed by a third party, even when the debtor fails to expressly designate the application of payments, such that the guarantor's liability is discharged.
• United Bonding Ins. Co. v. Gen. Cable Corp.
  381 F.2d 753· 5th Cir.· 1967-07-11 ·cited 2×
  A surety cannot use the equitable right of exoneration to delay payment of an admittedly owing debt until a disputed claim against a third party is litigated.
• United States v. Franchi Bros. Constr. Corp. & Md. Cas. Co.
  378 F.2d 134· 2d Cir.· 1967-05-23 ·cited 2×
  The dissenting judge would hold that the creditor acted properly in applying payments according to the debtor's instructions, as the creditor did not have reason to know of the debtor's duty to a third party. The dissenting judge would also reverse the judgment against the surety
• Midtown Bank OF Miami v. The Travelers Indem. Co.
  366 F.2d 459· 5th Cir.· 1966-09-20 ·cited 2×
  A surety's equitable lien on funds due its principal is superior to subsequent assignments, but this priority is defeated if the principal's creditor receives payment without notice of the surety's claim or the principal's default.
• Glassman Constr. Co., Inc. v. The Fid. & Cas. Co. OF NEW York
  356 F.2d 340· D.C. Cir.· 1966-01-06 ·cited 2×
  A surety's assignment of a subcontractor's rights is effective from the bond's execution date, and the prime contractor's right to set-off for costs on another job arises only after notice of the assignment, making the set-off ineffective.
• Denton v. Fireman's Fund Indem. Co.
  352 F.2d 95· 10th Cir.· 1965-10-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the indemnity agreement was validly delivered and enforceable, binding the appellant to indemnify the surety company for losses incurred on bonds executed after his co-indemnitor's death and without his explicit revocation.
• Godfrey P. Schmidt v. Smith
  344 F.2d 168· D.C. Cir.· 1965-02-04 ·cited 2×
• Atterbury v. Carpenter
  321 F.2d 921· 9th Cir.· 1963-08-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Atterbury was a surety, not an indemnitor, and was discharged from his obligation due to material changes in the loan agreement made without his consent.
• Am. Cas. Co. OF Reading v. Arrow Rd. Constr. Co. & Camco Constr. Co., Inc.
  309 F.2d 923· 9th Cir.· 1962-10-30 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the judgment against R & W but reversed the judgment against American Casualty, holding that a surety is not liable if the principal is not liable.
• Cent. Bank & Tr. Co. v. Meltzer
  145 So. 2d 766· Fla. 3d DCA· 1962-10-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that an accommodation endorser of a promissory note is not relieved of liability by the bank's failure to apply the maker's deposited funds against the note, even though the bank had the right to do so.
• Reid v. Miles Constr. Corp. & Great Am. Indem. Co. of N.Y. (Defendants) & Banco Land Co.
  307 F.2d 214· 8th Cir.· 1962-08-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous and that the surety was liable for damages, penalties, and attorney's fees.
• Anne Schick v. Moe Browarnik
  121 So. 2d 690· Fla. 3d DCA· 1960-06-23 ·cited 2×
  In this suretyship case, Schick sued Browarnik and others as guarantors of a $75,000 collateral note. The trial court granted summary judgment dismissing Schick's complaint, but the appellate court reversed, holding that the creditor was not required to sell collateral or pursue
• Mid-Continent Supply Co. v. Atkins & Potter Drilling Corp.
  229 F.2d 68· 10th Cir.· 1956-01-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a creditor may apply proceeds from the sale of collateral to obligations not guaranteed by third parties, even if those obligations are unsecured, before applying them to secured obligations guaranteed by third parties.
• Brocato v. Brocato
  74 So. 2d 58· Fla.· 1954-07-20 ·cited 2×
  A wife who jointly executed a purchase-money mortgage with her husband and later acquired the note and mortgage sued to foreclose against her husband. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed dismissal, holding that a wife cannot enforce a mortgage she signed on property held by both s
• Standard Galvanizing Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
  202 F.2d 736· 7th Cir.· 1953-03-17 ·cited 2×
  Legal fees incurred by a corporation to defend its president's interest in stock pledged as security for corporate loans are deductible as ordinary and necessary business expenses.
• United States v. Duby
  201 F.2d 800· 9th Cir.· 1952-01-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the surety is not automatically released by the government's failure to deduct accrued liquidated damages from progress payments; prejudice to the surety must be proven.
• McGRATH v. Dravo Corp.
  183 F.2d 709· 3d Cir.· 1950-07-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Attorney General, standing in the shoes of the alien property owner, could not recover royalties deducted by the withholding agent to cover taxes, as the alien's rights were settled before the vesting order.
• Tex. Wool & Mohair Mktg. Ass'n v. Standard Acc. Ins. Co.
  175 F.2d 835· 5th Cir.· 1949-07-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the federal court erred in not remanding the case to state court because the separable controversy lacked complete diversity of citizenship.
• Provident Tr. Co. of Philadelphia v. Metro. Cas. Ins. Co. of N.Y.
  152 F.2d 875· 3d Cir.· 1945-12-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the surety's obligation was conditional upon the principal's default, and since the principal was excused from performance due to the creditor's failure to advance funds, the surety was not liable.
• Am. Sur. Co. of N.Y. v. Sampsell
  148 F.2d 986· 9th Cir.· 1945-04-24 ·cited 2×
  A surety who has not paid all claims covered by its bond cannot share in the bankrupt estate until those claims are satisfied.
• United States Guar. Co. v. Colonial Oil Co.
  145 F.2d 496· 5th Cir.· 1944-11-14 ·cited 2×
  A surety is bound by the principal's good-faith allocation of shared costs to a bonded project, even if exact usage cannot be proven, and a payment from mixed project proceeds can be applied to a pre-existing debt if the creditor is unaware it's partnership funds.
• Fid. & Deposit Co. of Md. v. Hobbs
  144 F.2d 5· 10th Cir.· 1944-08-09 ·cited 2×
  A surety's claim for indemnity against the estate of a deceased principal is barred by the nonclaim statute if not filed within the statutory period, even if the claim was contingent at the time of the principal's death.
• Zumwalt v. Goodwin
  133 F.2d 984· 10th Cir.· 1943-01-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that an agreement to grant a second mortgage does not constitute notice of a vendor's lien for unpaid purchase price, and a bona fide mortgagee without notice of such lien takes priority.
• United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Doheny (two cases)
  123 F.2d 746· 9th Cir.· 1941-11-17 ·cited 2×
  The surety is liable under the bond for damages arising from the contractor's negligence, irrespective of the insurance policy's exclusions.
• S. T. McKnight Co. v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Tr. Co.
  120 F.2d 310· 8th Cir.· 1941-05-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the state court judgment in Andrus v. Collins was not binding on the McKnight Company to establish that Andrus was the original lessee, and the evidence did not support McKnight's claim that Andrus was an undisclosed principal.
• Md. Cas. Co. v. S. Pac. Co.
  119 F.2d 672· 9th Cir.· 1941-05-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a surety is not entitled to pro tanto subrogation until the obligee has been paid in full, and that a conditional tender that imposes an unreasonable condition does not stop the running of interest.
• Epstein v. Goldstein
  118 F.2d 73· 2d Cir.· 1941-03-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the lower court's judgment correctly allocated the debt to the proceeds of the bankrupt's shares, not the wife's shares, and that an appeal concerning a provision affecting only the bankrupt could not be considered.
• Goldring v. Thompson
  58 Fla. 248· Fla.· 1909-06-01 ·cited 2×
  Goldring sued Thompson for the value of beer shipped to Hall based on Thompson's letter assuring Goldring that "your money is good." The Florida Supreme Court reversed the lower court's dismissal, holding that Thompson's letter constituted an original undertaking or guarantee to