Court Opinion

ID: 9810747
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:57:20.371012+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:40:10.878353
License: Public Domain

Douglas, J.,
dissenting.
I have not had the opportunity since receiving the opinion of the Court to examine the record in this case. Hence, I am not prepared to say that there was such a change in the duties and responsibilities of the agent as to invalidate the bond.
This Court has said, in Bank v. Fidelity Co., 128 N. C., 366, 371: “The object of an indemnifying bond is to indemnify; and if it fails to do this, either directly or indirectly, it fails to' accomplish.its primary purpose and becomes *133worse than useless. It is worthless as an actual security, and misleading as a pretended one.”
I am, therefore, unwilling to permit a guaranty company to avoid the responsibility for which it has received a substantial consideration upon an immaterial variation. The mere change of title of an agent does not of itself change the nature of his duties; and a new contract affecting the nature of his compensation does not necessarily affect his responsibility. It is the faithful performance of his duties as agent that is intended to be secured by the bond, and not the guaranty of any particular contract.
There is another ground upon which I must dissent. The Court says: “There was no evidence tending to show that the defendant ever had notice of the execution of the April contract until the complaint was filed, six months afterwards. On the trial it is time that Johnson, the plaintiff’s agent, said he gave notice in Raleigh to Moye, the defendant’s agent, of the execution of the April contract, but Moye denied it emphatically.” Taken in its literal sense, this means either that Moye should be believed in preference to Johnson, which was a matter exclusively for the jury, or that notice to. the agent was not notice to the company, which would be erroneous as a proposition of law.
If the Court intends to say that this evidence was impliedly taken from the jury by the instruction of his Honor that they should not consider the April contract, that might raise a different question, which is, perhaps, identical with the one discussed in the first part of the opinion.