Case Name: MATTHEW WHITE, Appellant, v. JAMES RINTOUL, Respondent
Court: New York Superior Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1884-12-01
Citations: 19 Jones & S. 512
Docket Number: 
Parties: MATTHEW WHITE, Appellant, v. JAMES RINTOUL, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the Superior Court of the city of New York
Volume: 51
Pages: 512–513

Head Matter:
MATTHEW WHITE, Appellant, v. JAMES RINTOUL, Respondent.
Decided December 1, 1884.
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.

Opinion:
Van Vorst, J.
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 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.