From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

National Sur. Corp. v. Inland Properties, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
Oct 14, 1969
416 F.2d 457 (8th Cir. 1969)

Summary

applying Arkansas conflict principles

Summary of this case from Kronovet v. Lipchin

Opinion

No. 19467.

October 14, 1969.

Guy Amsler, Jr., of Barber, Henry, Thurman, McCaskill Amsler, Little Rock, Ark., for appellant.

Edward L. Wright, of Wright, Lindsey Jennings, Little Rock, Ark., for appellee, United Security Life Ins. Co.

Before MATTHES, GIBSON and BRIGHT, Circuit Judges.


In this diversity action appellant appeals from the judgment of the district court dismissing with prejudice appellant's complaint against appellee United Security Life Insurance Company, referred to herein as United.

The pivotal issue litigated in the district court was the liability of United to appellant on a written contract of guaranty in the form of a letter, allegedly executed on behalf of United by its former president, W.L. DeLong. More specifically, the Court was required to decide whether DeLong had actual or apparent authority to bind United by the guaranty upon which appellant's claim for relief is premised. Judge Henley, in a soundly reasoned opinion, persuasively demonstrated that DeLong lacked such authority. 286 F. Supp. 173, 176-182 (E.D.Ark. 1968).

We reject as untenable appellant's contention that the evidence established as a matter of law that the instrument under consideration constituted a valid and binding obligation of United, and that consequently the district court's findings and conclusions are clearly erroneous.

We have canvassed the voluminous record and are convinced that the evidence clearly supports the judgment of dismissal. Indeed, we find scant, if any, probative evidence to support appellant's claim. The district court was fully justified in finding on the evidence presented that DeLong had no authority to bind United by the instrument sued on. Certainly, analysis of the entire record does not leave us with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 68 S. Ct. 525, 92 L.Ed. 746 (1948).

The judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

National Sur. Corp. v. Inland Properties, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
Oct 14, 1969
416 F.2d 457 (8th Cir. 1969)

applying Arkansas conflict principles

Summary of this case from Kronovet v. Lipchin
Case details for

National Sur. Corp. v. Inland Properties, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:NATIONAL SURETY CORPORATION, Appellant, v. INLAND PROPERTIES, INC.…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

Date published: Oct 14, 1969

Citations

416 F.2d 457 (8th Cir. 1969)

Citing Cases

Keystone Leasing v. Peoples Protective Life Ins.

In Re Drive-In Development Corp., 371 F.2d 215 (7th Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 387 U.S. 909, 87 S.Ct. 1691, 18…

BICE CONST. CO. v. CIT CORP. OF THE SOUTH, INC.

Thus, if Arkansas law is applicable, there is no question that the note and security agreement executed in…