A. When a bond or undertaking conditioned upon the faithful performance of a duty, or upon doing or refraining from doing anything in the bond or undertaking specified, is by the laws of this state required or permitted to be given with surety, the execution or the guaranteeing of the performance of the condition shall be sufficient when executed or guaranteed solely by a corporation incorporated under the laws of the United States, or of any state, authorized to execute the bond or undertaking within this state, if the bond or undertaking is approved by the court, body or person required to approve or accept it. An officer or person having the power of approval of a bond shall not exact that it be furnished by a surety company or by a particular surety company.
B. The corporate surety shall file with the clerk of the superior court a power of attorney for each agent of such surety appointed to execute a bond in its behalf. A fee established pursuant to section 12-284 for each such filing shall be paid to the clerk of the superior court.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
4
cases, 1966–1977 · leading case:
Watson v. Welton, 563 P.2d 331 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977).
Watson v. Welton, 563 P.2d 331 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977).
· cites it 5× “But where a corporate surety undertakes a surety obligation on a bond (A.R.S. § 7-103) pursuant to a specific statutory requirement (A.”
Kreiss v. Clerk of the Superior Court, 530 P.2d 365 (Ariz. 1975).
· cites it 2× “” A.R.S. § 7-103. We therefore hold that where, as here, a foreign corporation and its agent have been licensed to do business in Arizona, the constitutional requirements are fulfilled and the court must approve the bail bond if in form it meets the conditions imposed for…”
Kreiss v. Clerk of Superior Court, 522 P.2d 1098 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1974).
· cites it 2× “This additional condition takes the place of former Rule 55, which contained language which was surplusage in view of A.R.S. § 7-103. 1 The new rules also provide for the “professional bondsman”, as did the old rule, but contain more stringent provisions.”
Wendt v. Tiller, 417 P.2d 532 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1966).
· cites it 5× “A.R.S. § 7-103 reads as follows: “ § 7-103.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.