Landy v. Fidelity & Deposit Co.

Supreme Court of Colorado

Landy v. Fidelity & Deposit Co.

261 P.2d 488, 128 Colo. 135, 1953 Colo. LEXIS 247

CourtSupreme Court of Colorado

DecidedAugust 24, 1953

DocketNo. 16,929

StatusPublished

This text of 261 P.2d 488 (Landy v. Fidelity & Deposit Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Colorado primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Landy v. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 261 P.2d 488, 128 Colo. 135, 1953 Colo. LEXIS 247 (Colo. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Stone

delivered the opinion of the court.

Plaintiff in error Landy brought suit against Woodmen of the World and several officers and directors-thereof, seeking judgment against them for alleged diversion and use for expenses of funds which had been collected for mortuary or disability purposes, and joined [136]*136defendant in error Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland as party defendant therein, alleging that it was surety on bonds executed by numerous of said individual defendants against whom judgment was sought. Thereafter defendant in error filed affidavit and motion for summary judgment, which motion was granted by the court and judgment of dismissal entered as to defendant in error.

Plaintiff Landy comes here seeking reversal of said judgment on several grounds. However, claim against this defendant in error was based solely upon the fact that it was surety on bonds of the several individual defendants in which Woodmen of the World was obligee. Therefore any liability of defendant in error would be contingent upon the liability of the defendants on whose bonds it was surety. While the trial court upon trial of said action against the other defendants therein adjudged in favor of plaintiff and entered judgment against said defendants, this court, in Case No. 16944, Alan Brown v. Hyman D. Landy, has reversed said judgment and determined that none of said defendants was liable in any sum on the claim therein asserted. Such being the case, there could be no liability on the part of Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland on their bonds, and the several issues raised herein as to the action of the court in sustaining motion of said defendant to dismiss have become moot.

The writ of error herein is dismissed.

Mr. Justice Knauss not participating.

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

Mr. Chief Justice Stone

delivered the opinion of the court.

Plaintiff in error Landy brought suit against Woodmen of the World and several officers and directors-thereof, seeking judgment against them for alleged diversion and use for expenses of funds which had been collected for mortuary or disability purposes, and joined [136]*136defendant in error Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland as party defendant therein, alleging that it was surety on bonds executed by numerous of said individual defendants against whom judgment was sought. Thereafter defendant in error filed affidavit and motion for summary judgment, which motion was granted by the court and judgment of dismissal entered as to defendant in error.

Plaintiff Landy comes here seeking reversal of said judgment on several grounds. However, claim against this defendant in error was based solely upon the fact that it was surety on bonds of the several individual defendants in which Woodmen of the World was obligee. Therefore any liability of defendant in error would be contingent upon the liability of the defendants on whose bonds it was surety. While the trial court upon trial of said action against the other defendants therein adjudged in favor of plaintiff and entered judgment against said defendants, this court, in Case No. 16944, Alan Brown v. Hyman D. Landy, has reversed said judgment and determined that none of said defendants was liable in any sum on the claim therein asserted. Such being the case, there could be no liability on the part of Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland on their bonds, and the several issues raised herein as to the action of the court in sustaining motion of said defendant to dismiss have become moot.

The writ of error herein is dismissed.

Mr. Justice Knauss not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 P.2d 488, 128 Colo. 135, 1953 Colo. LEXIS 247, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/landy-v-fidelity-deposit-co-colo-1953.