TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Carnegie Trust Co.

United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, Respondent, v. Carnegie Trust Company, Appellant

United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Carnegie Trust Co., 117 N.E. 1086 (N.Y. 1917)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
New York Court of Appeals · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 16, 1917
Citations
117 N.E. 1086221 N.Y. 6461917 N.Y. LEXIS 1517
Summary
Appeal from a judgment entered April 10, 1917, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, which affirmed an order of Special Term granting a motion by plaintiff for a judgment in its favor upon the pleadings. Defendant was a depository of the funds of estates in bankruptcy and as required by statute had given a bond for the safe- custody of the deposits. The plaintiff was the surety upon this bond. When the bond was issued the Carnegie Trust Company executed a written agreement of indemnity to the plaintiff to save it harmless from loss and to reimburse it for payments made by reason of the obligation of the bond. The trust company closed its doors and effort was made to recover by priority claim the funds of the estates in bankruptcy in toto, but the attempt failed and preference was denied. The bankruptcy creditors then filed general unsecured claims for the full amount of the deposits. Action by the bankruptcy creditors against the plaintiff followed and the plaintiff paid the obligation of its bond with interest. Thereafter the plaintiff offered for filing a claim against the assets of the Carnegie Trust Company in liquidation for reimbursement for the payment thus made. The plaintiff founded its claim upon the indemnity agreement. The defendant rejected the claim. Upon these facts the plaintiff sued to sustain the validity of the claim. The defendant, answering, denied the claim to be a valid one and alleged separately that dividends totalling thirty-five per cent had been paid to general unsecured creditors of the Carnegie Trust Company including the claims of the bankruptcy creditors for whom the plaintiff was surety.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Hiscock, Ch. J., Chase, Collin, Hogan, Cardozo and McLaughlin, JJ. Dissenting: Crane, J.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1926: 11927: 41939: 119262026peak 1927 · 4

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Centropolis Bank of Kansas City, Mo.17 F.2d 913 (8th Cir. 1927)
  2. Emlen's Estate4 A.2d 143 (Pa. 1939)
  3. National Surety Co. v. Jenkins18 F.2d 707 (8th Cir. 1927)
  4. Tennant v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.17 F.2d 38 (3d Cir. 1927)
  5. Mellette Farmers' Elevator Co. v. H. Poehler Co.18 F.2d 430 (D. Minnesota 1927)
  6. In re Dailey19 F.2d 95 (D.N.J. 1926)

Most recent

  1. Emlen's Estate4 A.2d 143 (Pa. 1939)
  2. National Surety Co. v. Jenkins18 F.2d 707 (8th Cir. 1927)
  3. Mellette Farmers' Elevator Co. v. H. Poehler Co.18 F.2d 430 (D. Minnesota 1927)
  4. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Centropolis Bank of Kansas City, Mo.17 F.2d 913 (8th Cir. 1927)
  5. Tennant v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.17 F.2d 38 (3d Cir. 1927)
  6. In re Dailey19 F.2d 95 (D.N.J. 1926)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list