Case ID: ohio-law-abs_5/html/0349-04.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "ROBINSON, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 409
    No. 20035
    The Maryland Casualty Co. v. Daniel McDiarmid.
    Error to the Court of Appeals of Montgomery County.
    1140. SURETIES — 1. Obligor on indemnity bond voluntarily given by a public officer for faithful discharge of duty, is liable, notwithstanding such a bond is not required by law or ordinance.
    2. Such bonds are official within meaning of 11242 GC.
    3. Where such a bond is executed by a bonding company, and when its form and nature of the transaction disclose that it was not intended that the officer should sign, the obligation is primary and not that of a surety.
    4. Action on such a bond may be brought any time within ten years, although action against the officer for breach has been barred.
   ROBINSON, J.

1. Where the state, or a political subdivision of the state, takes from any one an indemnity bond for the faithful performance by an officer of official duty, and such bond is voluntarily given, is based upon a valuable consideration and is not prohibited by law or against public policy, liability of the ob-ligor of such bond upon a breach of its condition is enforceable, notwithstanding the execution of such bond is not required by any statute of the state or by the charter or an ordinance of a municipality.

2. Such a bond is an official bond within the meaning and contemplation of Section 11242, General Code.

3. Where such bond is executed by a bonding company for a valuable consideration, and the form of the instrument and the whole transaction disclose that it was never intended that the officer covered by the bond was to join in its execution or its obligation, the contractual obligation of the signer thereof is primary and not that of a surety.

4. An action on such bond may be instituted at any time within the period of ten years after the cause of action accrues, even though an action against the officer for _ a breach of the official duty imposed upon him has been barred by the statute of limitations applicable to the act constituting such breach.

Judgment affirmed.

Marshall, CJ., Allen, Kinkade, Jones and Matthias, JJ., concur.