McDonough v. Waxman

California Court of Appeal Jan 15, 1930 No. Docket No. 6838.Published

Before: Knight

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the indemnity contract was broad enough to cover losses from the forfeiture of a second bail bond, as the contract contemplated multiple bonds and the parties intended for liability to continue until the termination of the legal proceedings.

Issues

Whether the surrender of the defendant in exoneration of the first bail bond terminated the defendants' liability under the indemnity contract.
Whether the inclusion of the words 'a corporation' in the complaint's caption, without proof of corporate entity, invalidated the judgment.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the contract in question, when construed in the light of the foregoing legal rules, is broad enough in its terms to include liability for the loss suffered by plaintiffs as a result of the forfeiture of the bond”

“the caption of the complaint constitutes no part of the statement of the cause of action, and it follows that the presence therein, inadvertently, of the words “a corporation” is of no importance.”

KNIGHT, J.

This is an appeal by the defendants from a judgment rendered against them in an action to recover upon a contract of indemnity.

The material facts are as follows: One Morris Appleman had been or was about to be arrested by the federal authorities upon a charge of having violated the immigration laws, and pending the hearing and determination of the charge he was admitted to bail in the sum of $1,000. Plaintiffs, as agents for a surety company, were employed by defendants to furnish the bail, which they did, and Appleman was released from custody. The condition upon which plaintiffs furnished bail was that defendants enter into the contract of indemnity in question, the essential portions of which are hereinafter set forth. The charge against Appleman resulted in an order for his deportation, and

habeas corpus

proceedings were then instituted in his behalf to test the legal sufficiency of the charge and the validity of the deportation proceedings based thereon; but as a prerequisite to obtaining such a writ it was necessary for Appleman to surrender into the custody of the United States marshal, which he did, immediately following which he was again admitted to bail in the sum of $1,000, which plaintiffs again furnished. Pending the hearing of the latter proceeding Appleman disappeared, and as a consequence his bond was declared forfeited, and plaintiffs were required to pay the principal thereof to the government in conformity with the terms of the bond and the order of forfeiture. The main contention defendants make in support of their appeal is that Appleman’s surrender in exoneration of the first bond operated as a termination of the contract of indemnity, and that consequently they were not liable for the loss suffered by plaintiffs as a result of the forfeiture of the second bond.

The general rule is that a guarantor will not be held responsible for anything not within the express terms of his contract, and that his liability cannot be extended beyond those terms by implication; but in this connection

[171]

it is held that for the purpose of ascertaining the meaning of the language used in such a contract the same rules of construction used in the interpretation of other contracts are to be employed; and like other contracts they ought not to be construed with technical nicety, but should be given a fair and reasonable interpretation in order to ascertain the true intent of the parties (13 Cal. Jur. 103).

McDonough v. Waxman

AI Brief

KNIGHT, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief