F. D. Co. v. Commonwealth Trust Co.

4 Citing cases

  1. Goldenberg v. Wardell

    92 F.2d 539 (D.C. Cir. 1937)   Cited 3 times

    In Daniels v. Goff, 192 Ky. 15, 232 S.W. 66, it is held that "existing liabilities" is a sufficiently broad and comprehensive term to embrace conditional or contingent obligations which may or may not in the future result in indebtedness. See Fidelity Deposit Co. of Md. v. Commonwealth Trust Co., 65 Misc. 88, 119 N.Y.S. 598; Wentz v. State, 108 Neb. 597, 188 N.W. 467; Brogan v. Ferguson, 101 Fla. 1306, 131 So. 171, 133 So. 317. It is further argued in behalf of appellant that the credit extended by the bank to the Vogue Company was not actually based upon the collateral deposited by Samuel Goldenberg to secure his note inasmuch as his note bore date of October 20, 1931, whereas the original loan to Vogue Company had been made on or about March 3, 1927. It appears from the record, however, that the Vogue Company note had been extended from time to time in substantially the same form and as Samuel Goldenberg testified, "The Vogue Dry Cleaning has always been intermingled with me at the bank."

  2. O'Malley v. Continental Life Ins. Co.

    343 Mo. 382 (Mo. 1938)   Cited 12 times

    6 C.J. 871; Hamilton v. Menominee Falls Quarry Co., 176 Wis. 352, 81 N.W. 876; Rice v. Milwaukee, 100 Wis. 516, 76 N.W. 341; Bailey v. Hornthal, 154 N.Y. 648, 49 N.E. 56; Brigham v. Tillinghast, 13 N.Y. 218; McFadden v. Leeka, 48 Ohio St. 518; White v. Poole, 220 Mo. App. 982; Matter of the World's Ins. Co., 40 Sup. Ct. 499; Attorney General v. Atlanta Mut. Life Ins. Co., 53 How. 300; Duncans v. Landis, 106 F. 858; Stern v. Paper, 183 F. 230; Ziegler v. Thayer, 83 A. 266; In re Hines, 144 F. 142; Arnold v. Knapp, 84 S.E. 895; Maclean Life Insurance (2 Ed.); 18 American Bar Assn. Journal 521; State ex rel. v. State Board of Health, 65 S.W.2d 950; State ex rel. Garman v. Offutt, 223 Mo. App. 1172, 26 S.W.2d 831; State v. Schwartzman Service, Inc., 40 S.W.2d 479; Richards on The Law of Insurance (4 Ed.), sec. 17, p. 24; Cutting v. Amer. Ins. Co., 197 Mass. 131, 83 N.E. 396; Fidelity Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Commonwealth Tr. Co., 119 N.Y.S. 598; Cochran v. United States, 157 U.S. 286; State ex rel. Natl. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Conn., 115 Ohio St. 607, 155 N.E. 138, 50 A.L.R. 479; Andre v. Beha, 208 N.Y.S. 65; Matter of People, 238 N.Y. 156, 144 N.E. 486; Application of People, 266 N.Y.S. 603; Chicago Life Ins. Co. v. Auditor, 101 Ill. 82; Provident Relief Assn. v. Vernon, 19 F.2d 709; Davis Savs. Trust Co. v. Hardee, 85 F.2d 571; United States Savs. Bank v. Margenthau, 85 F.2d 811; Covey v. Pierce, 82 S.W.2d 592; Cashman v. Pontiac Trust Co., 269 Mich. 68, 256 N.W. 807. (5)

  3. Lawrence v. American Surety Co.

    263 Mich. 586 (Mich. 1933)   Cited 31 times

    But, in case bonds are accepted in lieu of others, when default does not occur before the substitution, the former sureties are released when the substitution becomes effective. Fidelity Deposit Co. v. Commonwealth Trust Co., 65 Misc. 88 ( 119 N.Y. Supp. 598); Perkins v. State, ex rel. Roberson, 130 Miss. 512 ( 94 So. 460); New Liberty Common School District v. Merchants' Planters' Bank (Tex.Civ.App.), 273 S.W. 330; Pittsburg v. Rhodes, supra. The difference caused by substitution is remarked in County of Emmons v. Kleppe, 61 N.D. 536 ( 238 N.W. 651). Because the bonds given in lieu of the Century $250,000 and Maryland $60,000 obligations were approved by the statutory officers in substitution for them, the latter became wholly released from further liability.

  4. Kesner v. Faroll

    268 Ill. App. 531 (Ill. App. Ct. 1932)   Cited 5 times

    " Defendants urge that it is well settled under the authorities that the word "liability" is a term of broader signification than "debt" and includes "contingent responsibility." A number of authorities such as Home Ins. Co. of New York v. Peoria Pekin Union Ry. Co., 178 Ill. 64; State v. Sheets, 26 Utah 105, 72 P. 334; Cochran v. United States, 157 U.S. 286, and Fidelity Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Commonwealth Trust Co., 119 N.Y. S. 598, justify this contention. Defendants therefore conclude that the obligation, whatever it may have been, assumed by plaintiff under the guaranty of June 4, 1930, created a liability which was covered by the provisions of the prior writing.