John W. Jackson, Administrator D.B.N., C.T.A. Of the Estate of Bertha M. Roberts, Deceased v. Glens Falls Indemnity Company

D.C. Circuit

John W. Jackson, Administrator D.B.N., C.T.A. Of the Estate of Bertha M. Roberts, Deceased v. Glens Falls Indemnity Company

222 F.2d 807

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedMay 25, 1955

Docket12514

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 222 F.2d 807 (John W. Jackson, Administrator D.B.N., C.T.A. Of the Estate of Bertha M. Roberts, Deceased v. Glens Falls Indemnity Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

John W. Jackson, Administrator D.B.N., C.T.A. Of the Estate of Bertha M. Roberts, Deceased v. Glens Falls Indemnity Company, 222 F.2d 807 (D.C. Cir. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

An executor misappropriated funds. The question is whether his surety, the appellee, is liable to the estate, now represented by the appellant administrator, for interest on the amounts in default from the dates of the defaults, or as the District Court held, only from the time when payment of those amounts was demanded from appellee.

In United States v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 236 U.S. 512, 529, 35 S.Ct. 298, 303, 59 L.Ed. 696, “the actual damages exceed [ed] the amount of the penalty” named in the surety bond. Cf. Cunningham v. Cunningham, 81 U.S.App.D.C. 300, 157 F.2d 859. Here, the penalty named in the bond exceeded the damages. But the *808 Fidelity rule, that interest does not run against a surety until demand is made upon him, has been extended to cases in which, as in the present case, “the penalty of the bond is ample to meet in full the claims of all.” Royal Indemnity Co. v. Woodbury Granite Co., 69 App.D.C. 364, 368, 369, 101 F.2d 689, 693, 694. London & Lancashire Indemnity Co. v. Smoot, 52 App.D.C. 378, 287 F. 952.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

An executor misappropriated funds. The question is whether his surety, the appellee, is liable to the estate, now represented by the appellant administrator, for interest on the amounts in default from the dates of the defaults, or as the District Court held, only from the time when payment of those amounts was demanded from appellee.

In United States v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 236 U.S. 512, 529, 35 S.Ct. 298, 303, 59 L.Ed. 696, “the actual damages exceed [ed] the amount of the penalty” named in the surety bond. Cf. Cunningham v. Cunningham, 81 U.S.App.D.C. 300, 157 F.2d 859. Here, the penalty named in the bond exceeded the damages. But the *808 Fidelity rule, that interest does not run against a surety until demand is made upon him, has been extended to cases in which, as in the present case, “the penalty of the bond is ample to meet in full the claims of all.” Royal Indemnity Co. v. Woodbury Granite Co., 69 App.D.C. 364, 368, 369, 101 F.2d 689, 693, 694. London & Lancashire Indemnity Co. v. Smoot, 52 App.D.C. 378, 287 F. 952.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 F.2d 807, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-w-jackson-administrator-dbn-cta-of-the-estate-of-bertha-m-cadc-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack