Fidelity Deposit v. Central St. Bank

2 Citing cases

  1. National Sur. Corp. v. Rauscher, Pierce Co.

    369 F.2d 572 (5th Cir. 1967)   Cited 11 times
    Affirming award of court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in defending suits arising out of fraudulent acts of an employee which were covered under fidelity bond

    At the outset we start with the Texas rule that doubts in construction of the bond must be resolved against the surety. Fidelity and Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Central State Bank, Tex. Civ.App. 1928, 12 S.W.2d 611, 613; Massachusetts Bonding Ins. Co. v. Texas Finance Corp., Tex.Civ.App. 1924, 258 S.W. 250, error dismissed; First State Bank v. Metropolitan Casualty Ins. Co., 1935, 125 Tex. 113, 79 S.W.2d 835, 98 A.L.R. 1256. But we see no doubt and no reason to import doubt.

  2. Parliament Ins. v. L. B. Foster

    533 S.W.2d 43 (Tex. Civ. App. 1976)   Cited 8 times
    In Parliament Ins Co, materialmen brought an action against a surety to recover on a subcontractor's performance-payment bond executed in favor of the contractor.

    We pause to note the Texas rule that all doubts in the construction of the bond must be resolved against the surety. National Surety Corporation v. Rauscher, Pierce Co., 369 F.2d 572 (C.C.A.5th Cir. 1967); Fidelity Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Central State Bank of Dallas, 12 S.W.2d 611 (Tex.Civ.App. — Waco 1928, no writ); First State Bank of Temple v. Metropolitan Casualty Ins. Co. of New York, 125 Tex. 113, 79 S.W.2d 835 (1935). In connection with the surety's intent in executing the bond, the construction contract between Cox and Dickson should be considered.