Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 10-4-301 (2026)

Bond executed by surety company

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) Whenever any bond, undertaking, recognizance, or other obligation is, by law or the charter, ordinance, rules, or regulations of any municipality, board, body, organization, court, judge, or public officer, required or permitted to be made, given, tendered, or filed with surety and whenever the performance of any act, duty, contract, or obligation or the refraining from any act is required or permitted to be guaranteed, such bond, undertaking, obligation, recognizance, or guaranty may be executed as surety by a company qualified as provided in this title. Such execution by the company of such bond, undertaking, obligation, recognizance, or guaranty shall be in all respects a full and complete compliance with every requirement of every law, charter, ordinance, rule, or regulation that the bond, undertaking, obligation, recognizance, or guaranty was executed by one or more sureties or that sureties shall be residents or householders or freeholders, or either, or both, or possess any other qualifications.

(2) All courts, judges, heads of departments, boards, bodies, municipalities, and public officers of every character shall accept and treat such bond, undertaking, obligation, recognizance, or guaranty, when so executed by such company, as conforming to and fully and completely complying with every such requirement of every such law, charter, ordinance, rule, or regulation; except that such company may be required to justify, in such terms and for such amounts as may be satisfactory, to the court, person, or body authorized to approve such surety.

Source: L. 79: Entire part R&RE, p. 360, § 7, effective July 1.

Editor's note: This section is similar to former § 10-4-321 as it existed prior to 1979.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1 case, 1978–1978 · leading case: State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Barnes, 585 P.2d 929 (Colo. Ct. App. 1978).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Barnes, 585 P.2d 929 (Colo. Ct. App. 1978). “It determined that the statute did not give the Commissioner authority to limit profits and, consequently, that he did not have the power to require State Farm to hold in trust any net underwriting profit in excess of 6.”

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.