United States v. Olson

2 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Gonzales & Gonzales Bonds and Ins. Agency, Inc.

    728 F. Supp. 2d 1077 (N.D. Cal. 2010)   Cited 12 times
    Rejecting G & G's contention that de novo review is appropriate

    These instruments create a contract between the Service [INS], the bonding agent and attorney-in-fact, and the surety company." Id. at 125; see also UnitedStates v. Minnesota Trust Co., 59 F.3d 87 (8th Cir. 1995) (the court relied upon contract principles — obligations placed upon the obligor and obligee by the bond instrument — to determine the government's responsibilities); United States v. Olson, 47 F.2d 1070, 1070 (8th Cir. 1931) (where both the government and the surety company had signed the bond, the government could be entitled to payment because there existed "a contract between the United States on one hand and the signers thereof on the other."). Indeed, even the government has argued for this conclusion in the past.

  2. Bongiovanni v. Ward

    50 F. Supp. 3 (D. Mass. 1943)   Cited 4 times
    In Bongiovanni v. Ward, D.C., 50 F. Supp. 3, where suit was brought on a bond in default of the appearance of the alien, it was held that the caurt was without authority to admit to bail.

    Some cases intimate that the surety is estopped from denying the validity of the bail bond after securing the release of the principal. United States v. Olson, 8 Cir., 47 F.2d 1070; and see United States v. Pizzarusso, supra. However, the proper view is that a bail bond taken without authority is void and does not bind the principal or his sureties.