Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 296 U.S. 133 - American Surety Co of New York v. Westinghouse Electric Mfg Co

American Surety Co of New York v. Westinghouse Electric Mfg Co’s Empirical Analysis

296 U.S. 133 · 1935

Citation profile

208
cited by 208 later decisions
16
cited 16 times by the Supreme Court
15
states following
October 2012
most recently cited

57 federal appellate · 14 district · 44 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 208 later decisions (16 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2012 · most notably Martin v. National Surety Co. (1937), Prudence Realization Corp. v. Geist (1942)

57 federal appellate · 14 district · 44 state decisions — followed in 15 states

420193519401950196019701980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Appellate journey

reviewedAmerican Surety Co. of New York v. Westinghouse Electric Mfg. Co. (from Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Prairie State Nat Bank of Chicago v. United States · Henningsen v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. · Illinois Surety Company v. John Davis Company E H B · Keller v. Ashford · Brogan v. National Surety Co.

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 208 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “It is settled that a surety liable for only part of a debt does not become subrogated to collateral or to remedies available to the creditor unless he pays the whole debt or it is otherwise satisfied. American Surety Company v. Westinghouse Electric Company, 296 U.S. 133 , 56 S.Ct. 9, 80 L.Ed. 105; Jenkins v. National Surety Company, 277 U.S. 258 , 48 S.Ct. 445, 72 L.Ed. 874; United States v. National Surety Company, 254 U.S. 73 , 41 S.Ct. 29, 65 L.Ed. 143; U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Union Bank & Trust Co., 6 Cir., 228 F. 448.”
    12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The rule would go for naught if, by claiming indemnity instead of subrogation, the surety could achieve the same result. * * * “Wherever equitable principles are called in play, as they preeminently are in determining the rights and liabilities of sureties and in the distribution of insolvents’ estates, they likewise forbid the surety to secure by independent contract with the debtor indemnity at the expense of the creditor whose claim he has undertaken to secure.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The obligation of the surety, however, unlike that of the contractor was created solely by the bond and is limited thereby and by the equities growing out of the suretyship relation. In any suit upon the bond, at least against the surety the nominated penalty was to be the limit of recovery.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.