United States v. Peerless Casualty Company

Third Circuit

United States v. Peerless Casualty Company

360 F.2d 210, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6036

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMay 24, 1966

Docket15725

StatusPublished

This text of 360 F.2d 210 (United States v. Peerless Casualty Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Peerless Casualty Company, 360 F.2d 210, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6036 (3d Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This action was commenced by the United States to recover for the breach of an appearance bond executed by the Peerless Casualty Company. After Peerless had conceded that the bond had been breached, the district court concluded that the provision in the bond for the payment of five thousand dollars in the event of breach “was, in [its] opinion, a reasonable forecast of just compensation * * * ” and granted the government’s motion for summary judgment.

Though Peerless raises several issues before us, the essential question is whether the district court erred in concluding as a matter of law that the provision was not penal, and therefore, enforcible. We think that the district court committed no error in holding that five thousand dollars properly constituted liquidated damages. See 5 Corbin, Contracts § 1062 at 355-356; 3 Williston, Contracts §§ 775 et seq.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This action was commenced by the United States to recover for the breach of an appearance bond executed by the Peerless Casualty Company. After Peerless had conceded that the bond had been breached, the district court concluded that the provision in the bond for the payment of five thousand dollars in the event of breach “was, in [its] opinion, a reasonable forecast of just compensation * * * ” and granted the government’s motion for summary judgment.

Though Peerless raises several issues before us, the essential question is whether the district court erred in concluding as a matter of law that the provision was not penal, and therefore, enforcible. We think that the district court committed no error in holding that five thousand dollars properly constituted liquidated damages. See 5 Corbin, Contracts § 1062 at 355-356; 3 Williston, Contracts §§ 775 et seq.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

360 F.2d 210, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6036, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-peerless-casualty-company-ca3-1966.