delivered the opinion of the court.
Illinois Surety Co. v. Frank, 199 Ill. App. 318 (1916)
April 28, 1916
·
Illinois Appellate Court
·
Gen. No. 21,460
199 Ill. App. 318
Illinois Surety Company, Defendant in Error, v. David L. Frank, Plaintiff in Error.
Gen. No. 21,460.
(Not to be reported in full.)
Error to the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Clarence N. Goodwin, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1915.
Affirmed.
Opinion filed April 28, 1916.
Statement of the Case.
Action by the Illinois Surety Company, a corporation, plaintiff, against David L. Frank, defendant, on two written instruments signed by him, one an application to plaintiff to become surety on a stay bond for a corporation, of which defendant’s brother was secretary, containing an agreement of indemnity to the company, and the other a general bond of indemnity to plaintiff against the same contingencies. At the close of the evidence the court directed a verdict for plaintiff for $2,561.81.
The defenses pleaded and attempted to be made were that the instruments were signed by defendant in blank and delivered so signed upon conditions not complied with of which plaintiff had notice before delivery. The conditions claimed were that defendant was not to be liable in excess of $40 (the amount of the premium to *319be paid by the principal to the stay bond for the surety-ship of plaintiff), and that said principal should deposit certain cash to indemnify plaintiff.
Abstract of the Decision.
1. Indemnity, § 24 * —when evidence sufficient to support verdict. In an action on an indemnity bond, evidence examined and held to support a verdict for plaintiff.
2. Indemnity, § 11*—when condition not communicated to one to whom bond given not binding on him. A condition made in a conversation between the signer of an indemnity bond and the person for whom it was signed, limiting the amount for which the signer would be liable, is not binding on the indemnified person where the one on whose behalf the bond was signed was not the agent of the indemnified.
Both defendant and his brother testified to a conversation between themselves had at the time the latter brought the papers to the former for his signature, intimating some purpose on defendant’s part to limit his liability. There was no proof that defendant’s brother communicated the conversation to plaintiff when he delivered the signed instruments, or at any time.
Adler & Lederer, for plaintiff in error.
Moses, Rosenthal & Kennedy, for defendant in error; Joseph W. Moses and Henry Jackson Darby, of counsel.