Thorsen v. Poe
Cases that cite this one
9 later published cases cite this decision.
- Stanley Clayman and Melvin Clayman v. Goodman Properties, Inc (D.C. Cir. 1974)
- Suero-Algarin v. Hima San Pablo Caguas (District Court, D. Puerto Rico 2021)
- Concord Boat Corporation v. Brunswick Corporation (8th Cir. 2002)
- Concord Boat Corp. v. Brunswick Corp. (8th Cir. 2002)
- Agnes Prestidge v. W.R. Prestidge (8th Cir. 1987)
- Carter v. Lechty (8th Cir. 1934)
- United States Casualty Co. v. Indemnity Ins. Co. of North America (Ohio 1935)
- Blair v. Wells (Ark. 1923)
- Weaver-Dowdy Co. v. Brewer (Ark. 1917)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
(after stating the facts.) Appellants contend that no equities arose from the judgment of the liquor company as between A. B. Poe and W. B. Calhoun, which can be enforced against the assignees of Calhoun, who were not parties thereto, this court having reversed the judgment of the lower court after the assignment thereof to Calhoun, and dismissed the action as to him. It is not denied however that Poe and Calhoun were sureties on the bond required by law of the insurance company, and as such liable of course to the payment of its obligations. The chancellor found in this action for contribution that surety Poe paid obligations of said principal insurance company, in discharge of the liability as surety oh said bond in sufficient amounts to entitle him to recover as contribution from his co-surety Calhoun the sum of $1,500, from which judgment no appeal was taken by said Cal- . houn.
Having the right to contribution of said amount from W. B. Calhoun, who was in fact a party when he paid the consideration and became the first assignee of the judgment, he can enforce the collection of the amount thereof as against the judgment in the hands of the present assignee, the assignment not cutting off any equities nor defenses that existed as between said Calhoun and appellee Poe.
The decree is affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.