Home > Journals > Michigan Law Review > MLR > Volume 31 > Issue 2 (1932)
Abstract
A bank sued to recover on a surety bond for loss sustained because of fraud practised by one of the vice-presidents on a customer. The bond provided that performance was subject to certain conditions and limitations, among which was one to the effect that the bank should notify the surety within ninety days of the default. The surety was not notified until the trial four years later. Held, notification is a condition precedent to liability, even though the surety was not prejudiced by lack of notice. National City Bank v. National Security Company, (C. C. A. 6th, 1932) 58 F. (2d) 7.
Recommended Citation
SURETYSHIP - INTERPRETATION OF SURETY CONTRACT,
31
Mich. L. Rev.
285
(1932).
Available at:
https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol31/iss2/23