Case ID: ny_226/html/0707-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

National Surety Company et al., Appellants and Respondents, v. Edmund K. Stallo, Respondent and Appellant.
    
      National Surety Co. v. Stallo, 171 App. Div. 206, affirmed.
    (Argued May 22, 1919;
    decided June 6, 1919.)
    Cross-appeals from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered March 26, 1917, affirming a judgment .in favor of plaintiffs entered upon a decision of the court at a Trial Term without a jury. The action was to recover premiums alleged to be due on two surety bonds. The trial court held that the provision in the written contracts that the defendant should continue liable for premiums on the bonds until the plaintiffs should be furnished with competent written legal evidence of their discharge from liability, was not intended to apply to the case where the sureties procured an order, on their own initiative, terminating their further liability thereunder, regardless of the consent or wish of the principal; and that, therefore, the plaintiffs were entitled to recover only a proportionate share of the premium payable on each bond for the first year, covering the period from the date of execution of said bond to the date of the entry of the order relieving the plaintiffs from further liability thereon.
    
      Allen Evarts Foster and Howard Mansfield for plaintiffs, appellants and respondents.
    
      Charles A. Winter for defendant, respondent and appellant.
   Judgment affirmed, without costs; no opinion.

Concur: Hiscock, Ch. J., Collin, Cuddeback, Cardozo, Pound, Crane and Andrews, JJ.