National Surety Corporation v. Inland Properties, Inc., Transamerican Marketing Corp. And United Security Life Insurance Company

416 F.2d 457, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 10438
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedOctober 14, 1969
Docket19467_1
StatusPublished
Cited by25 cases

This text of 416 F.2d 457 (National Surety Corporation v. Inland Properties, Inc., Transamerican Marketing Corp. And United Security Life Insurance Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
National Surety Corporation v. Inland Properties, Inc., Transamerican Marketing Corp. And United Security Life Insurance Company, 416 F.2d 457, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 10438 (8th Cir. 1969).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this diversity action appellant appeals from the judgment of the district court dismissing with prejudice appellant’s complaint against appellee United Security Life Insurance Company, referred to herein as United.

The pivotal issue litigated in the district court was the liability of United to appellant on a written contract of guaranty in the form of a letter, allegedly executed on behalf of United by its former president, W. L. DeLong. More specifically, the Court was required to decide whether DeLong had actual or apparent authority to bind United by the guaranty upon which appellant’s claim for relief is premised. Judge Henley, in a soundly reasoned opinion, persuasively demonstrated that DeLong lacked such authority. 286 F.Supp. 173, 176-182 (E.D.Ark.1968).

We reject as untenable appellant’s contention that the evidence established as a matter of law that the instrument under consideration constituted a valid and binding obligation of United, and that consequently the district court’s findings and conclusions are clearly erroneous.

We have canvassed the voluminous record and are convinced that the evidence clearly supports the judgment of dismissal. Indeed, we find scant, if any, probative evidence to support appellant’s *458 claim. The district court was fully justified in finding on the evidence presented that DeLong had no authority to bind United by the instrument sued on. Certainly, analysis of the entire record does not leave us with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 68 S.Ct. 525, 92 L.Ed. 746 (1948).

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Related

Opinion No.
Arkansas Attorney General Reports, 2010
Aetna Life Insurance v. Great National Corp.
818 F.2d 19 (Eighth Circuit, 1987)
Tiffany Industries, Inc. v. Commercial Grain Bin Co.
714 F.2d 799 (Eighth Circuit, 1983)
General Overseas Films, Ltd. v. Robin International, Inc.
542 F. Supp. 684 (S.D. New York, 1982)
Kronovet v. Lipchin
415 A.2d 1096 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1980)
Lonoke Production Credit Ass'n v. Pfeifer Milling Co.
595 S.W.2d 223 (Court of Appeals of Arkansas, 1980)
Wilkins v. M & H FINANCIAL, INC.
476 F. Supp. 212 (E.D. Arkansas, 1979)
Simpson v. Philco Finance Corp.
556 F.2d 895 (Eighth Circuit, 1977)
In Re Romine
556 F.2d 895 (Eighth Circuit, 1977)
Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Hall
367 F. Supp. 1009 (E.D. Arkansas, 1973)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
416 F.2d 457, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 10438, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-surety-corporation-v-inland-properties-inc-transamerican-ca8-1969.