Hyperlawhypertext legal database White v. Rintoul 51 N.Y. Super. Ct. 512

← Cases

White v. Rintoul

51 N.Y. Super. Ct. 512 19 Jones & S. 512 Court N.Y. Super. Ct. Decision date 1884-12-01 English

Decision Majority — Van Vorst, J. · Concurring — Sedgwick, Ch. J., and Freedman, J.,

Contents

Majority

p. 512
MATTHEW WHITE, Appellant, v. JAMES RINTOUL, Respondent.
Decided December 1, 1884.

Headnote

Undertaking.—Fidelity and, Casualty Co.
Before Sedgwick, Ch. J., Van Vorst and Freedman, JJ.
Appeal from an order overruling plaintiff’s objections to defendant’s motion for the approval and acceptance of the undertaking and guaranty given on defendant’s appeal from judgment herein, and granting said motion, and accepting said undertaking and guaranty.

The competency of the Fidelity and Casualty Company of New York, to guarantee undertakings required or permitted by law, has been already passed upon by the supreme court at general term, in the first and second departments, which have formulated rules upon the subject (Matter of Filer, 11 Abb. N. C. 107 , and cases cited in note).

The sufficiency and legality of a guarantee by such company, and its binding force has been heretofore sanctioned by this court, as it has been by the surrogate and city court. The rules of the supreme court were founded upon an examination as to the status and powers of this corporation under the statute. Our examination of the

Concurrence

p. 513
subject does not lead us to a conclusion in opposition to that reached by the supreme court. Some objection is made to the regularity of the organization of this corporation. That subject has been already passed upon. But in no event could the corporation set up a defective organization against the claim of the plaintiff upon the guaranty which it has made to him. We see nothing in the other objection taken, to lead us to interfere with the order approving the undertaking and guaranty. The justification was sufficient.

Arthur R. JRohertson, for appellant.

Moore, Lowe & Sandford, for respondent.

concurred on the ground that the company’s justification in this case was sufficient.

Order appealed from affirmed, with costs and disbursements of the appeal.