Title: BOARD OF CTY. COMMR., TULSA CTY v. FIDELITY & CAS.
Citation: 1959 OK 140, 342 P.2d 552
Docket Number: 
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: July 14, 1959

BOARD OF CTY. COMMR., TULSA CTY v. FIDELITY & CAS. Annotate this Case BOARD OF CTY. COMMR., TULSA CTY v. FIDELITY & CAS. 1959 OK 140 342 P.2d 552 Case Number: 38292 Decided: 07/14/1959 Supreme Court of Oklahoma BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF TULSA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. FIDELITY AND CASUALTY COMPANY OF NEW YORK, DEFENDANT IN ERROR. Syllabus by the Court ¶0 1. A 'Public Employees Faithful Performance Blanket Position Bond' covering all employees in the office of a Court Clerk, naming the State of Oklahoma, as the obligee for the use and benefit of the Court Clerk is not a statutory bond as may be required by virtue of Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County; W. Lee Johnson, Judge. Action to recover judgment on public employees faithful performance blanket position bond. From judgment for plaintiff, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed. Robert D. Simms, County Atty., Donald D. Cameron, Asst. County Atty., Tulsa, for plaintiff in error. David H. Sanders, Bert McElroy, Tulsa, for defendant in error. IRWIN, Justice. ¶1 This is an appeal by the Board of County Commissioners of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, from a judgment in its favor for an amount less than prayed for. Fidelity and Casualty Company of New York, also perfected its appeal from said judgment in cause numbered 38,341, styled, The Fidelity and Casualty Company of New York v. Board of County Commissioners of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, Okl.Sup., 342 P.2d 547 . ¶2 Although there were two appeals from the same judgment there is only one judgment for review before this Court. This case is identical as to issues and questions of law to cause numbered 38,341, supra, and our opinion in that case, promulgated on July 14, 1959, is dispositive of the instant case. Therefore, said opinion and syllabus therein are approved and adopted as the syllabus and opinion herein, and the judgment of the District Court is affirmed. ¶3 WILLIAMS, V.C.J., and HALLEY, JOHNSON, BLACKBIRD and BERRY, JJ., concur.