Cases Determined by the St. Louis, Kansas City and Springfield Courts of Appeals of the State of Missouri Volume 130

Cases Determined by the St. Louis, Kansas City and Springfield Courts of Appeals of the State of Missouri Volume 130

List price: US$22.40

Currently unavailable

Add to wishlist

AbeBooks may have this title (opens in new window).

Try AbeBooks

Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1908 edition. Excerpt: ... learning of his having absconded, wrote to defendant's agent at St. Louis asking if the application had been approved and if so when he might expect the bond. He said nothing as to what he had learned about Clary. Several days later, on October 4th, plaintiff wrote to defendant at Philadelphia asking if the application had been approved and what was causing the delay, and if it was for lack of replies from references he could perhaps assist in getting such replies.' In this letter plaintiff also failed to state that he had information that Clary had absconded. It was in answer to this last letter that defendant wrote under date of October 6th that it had sent the bond on October 4th and had not sent it sooner becaue of the impression spoken of above and expressing regret at the delay. Plaintiff received the bond and then, on October 12th, he wrote to both the agent at St. Louis and to defendant at Philadelphia notifying them that Clary had absconded on September 26th, leaving a shortage of $494.55. On the next day, October 13th, the agent at St. Louis acknowledged receipt of the notice and asked plaintiff to send any other information he might obtain. There was further correspondence to which we will refer further on. The defendant contends that it was led to issue the bond through the fraud and deception of plaintiff in the letters asking that the bond be sent to him when he knew of the defalcation and fraudulently suppressed such knowledge. The contention is that no valid contract was made by defendant. A_ contract of suretyship against loss by dishonesty of employees is, for all practical purposes, a contract of insurance, and the contract must be governed and construed as an insurance policy. Shockman v. U. S. System Co., ...show more

Product details

  • Paperback
  • 189 x 246 x 13mm | 458g
  • Rarebooksclub.com
  • United States
  • English
  • black & white illustrations
  • 1236853393
  • 9781236853394