Maryland Casualty Co. v. Teer

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Maryland Casualty Co. v. Teer

197 S.E. 558, 214 N.C. 29, 1938 N.C. LEXIS 256

DecidedJune 15, 1938

StatusPublished

This text of 197 S.E. 558 (Maryland Casualty Co. v. Teer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Maryland Casualty Co. v. Teer, 197 S.E. 558, 214 N.C. 29, 1938 N.C. LEXIS 256 (N.C. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Tbe defendant argues tbat tbe notice wbicb be gave tbe plaintiff to tbe effect tbat be was ready and able to take care of tbe defense of tbe case in wbicb tbey were jointly sued, bimself employing attorneys and paying fees, and would not reimburse plaintiff for attorney’s fees paid by it, bad tbe legal effect of relieving tbe defendant of any obligation on bis contract in tbis respect.

Tbe right of a person against whom a suit has been brought to employ counsel of bis own choosing is rather fundamental in our practice. We are inclined to sustain it as being reasonable, unless it is found to be abrogated by contract. We find in tbe contract between tbe parties no provision to which tbe privilege claimed by tbe defendant can be referred, and we are not persuaded tbat it arises as a legal incident to tbe relation of principal and surety in tbe indemnity bond. Indeed, as we see it, some violence must be done tbe treaty between tbe parties to reach such a result, since in the contract it is expressly provided tbat in case of suit tbe plaintiff surety company may employ counsel of its own choosing.

We conclude, therefore, tbat tbe notice given by tbe defendant to tbe plaintiff did not have tbe legal effect of relieving him from tbe obligation to reimburse tbe plaintiff for attorney’s fees paid in defense of tbe former suit, and tbe judgment is

Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

Tbe defendant argues tbat tbe notice wbicb be gave tbe plaintiff to tbe effect tbat be was ready and able to take care of tbe defense of tbe case in wbicb tbey were jointly sued, bimself employing attorneys and paying fees, and would not reimburse plaintiff for attorney’s fees paid by it, bad tbe legal effect of relieving tbe defendant of any obligation on bis contract in tbis respect.

Tbe right of a person against whom a suit has been brought to employ counsel of bis own choosing is rather fundamental in our practice. We are inclined to sustain it as being reasonable, unless it is found to be abrogated by contract. We find in tbe contract between tbe parties no provision to which tbe privilege claimed by tbe defendant can be referred, and we are not persuaded tbat it arises as a legal incident to tbe relation of principal and surety in tbe indemnity bond. Indeed, as we see it, some violence must be done tbe treaty between tbe parties to reach such a result, since in the contract it is expressly provided tbat in case of suit tbe plaintiff surety company may employ counsel of its own choosing.

We conclude, therefore, tbat tbe notice given by tbe defendant to tbe plaintiff did not have tbe legal effect of relieving him from tbe obligation to reimburse tbe plaintiff for attorney’s fees paid in defense of tbe former suit, and tbe judgment is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

197 S.E. 558, 214 N.C. 29, 1938 N.C. LEXIS 256, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maryland-casualty-co-v-teer-nc-1938.