Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
General
UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant in Error
12 F.2d 1021·United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·1926
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant in Error.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
June 8, 1926.)
No. 2369.
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore; Morris A. Soper, Judge.
L. B. Keene Claggett, of Baltimore, Md. (Edgar Allan Poe and Bartlett, Poe & Claggett, all of Baltimore, Md., on the brief), for plaintiff in error.
George Ross Veazey, of Baltimore, Md. (Vernon Cook, of Baltimore, Md., on the brief), for Fidelity & Casualty Co., of New York, by permission of the Court.
A. W. W. Woodcock, U. S. Atty., and Morton P. Fisher, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Baltimore, Md.
Before WOODS, WADDILL, and ROSE, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — ROSE, Circuit Judge.]
ROSE, Circuit Judge.
The bond in suit in this case was that given by one holding a permit to sell distilled spirits and wines for other than beverage purposes. It was on form No. 1408. In the court below, the learned District Judge ruled that the government was entitled to recover the full penalty of the bond without proving anything other than the violation of the condition. Very recently the Supreme Court has held otherwise, in the case "of the United States v. Zerbey and the National Surety Co., 46 S. Ct. 532, 70 L. Ed.-, decided May 24,1926.
Reversed.
Judge WOODS died shortly after the argument before us.