Actions may be brought from time to time on any bond required by law for the discharge
or performance of any public or fiducial office, trust or employment, in the name of the
Commonwealth, for its benefit or for that of any person injured by a breach of the
covenant or condition, at the proper costs of the party suing, against the parties jointly or
severally, together with the personal representatives, heirs and devisees or distributees of
such of them as may be dead. Recovery against the surety shall be limited to the amount
of the penalty fixed in the bond, but recovery against the principal shall not be limited by
the amount of the penalty fixed in the bond. Recovery on the bond shall not be restricted
to duties or responsibilities belonging to the office, trust or employment at the date the
bond is executed, but may include any duties or responsibilities thereafter imposed by law
or lawfully assumed.
Effective: October 1, 1942
History through 1968: Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1,
1942, from Ky. Stat. secs. 186d-1, 3752.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
9
cases, 1947–2017 · leading case:
Miller v. Davis, 267 F. Supp. 3d 961 (E.D. Ky. 2017).
Miller v. Davis, 267 F. Supp. 3d 961 (E.D. Ky. 2017).
· cites it 2× “” Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 62.070 . Each of these avenues allow the Commonwealth to wield authority over county clerks, and their duty to issue marriage licenses.”
Maratty v. Pruitt, 334 S.W.3d 107 (Ky. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 4× “The specific statutory authority serving as the basis of the complaint was KRS 62.070, as an action for recovery on a fiduciary’s bond.”
City of Middlesboro v. Am. Sur. Co., 211 S.W.2d 670 (Ky. Ct. App. 1947).
“We cannot agree with counsel in this respect in as much as that section of the statute further provides: “The bond shall be limited in a definite penal sum, which shall be determined and fixed by the officer or officers whose duty it is to approve the bond.”
City of Mboro. v. Amer. Sur. Co. of New York, 211 S.W.2d 670 (Ky. Ct. App. 1947).
“We cannot agree with counsel in this respect in as much as that section of the statute further provides: “The bond shall be limited in a definite penal sum, which shall be determined and fixed by the officer or officers whose duty it is to approve the bond.”
Polk v. Am. Cas. Co. of Reading, PA., 816 S.W.2d 178 (Ky. 1991).
“” KRS 62.070, the statute here in question, then provides in pertinent part that “[rjecovery against the surety shall be limited to the amount of the penalty fixed in the bond,” while recovery against the principal is not so limited.”
Fid. & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Combs, 176 F. Supp. 756 (E.D. Ky. 1959).
· cites it 2× “” In respect to actions on bonds required by law for the discharge or performance of the duties of a public office, section 62.070 of the Kentucky Revised Statutes provides: , * * Recovery on the bond shall not be restricted to duties or responsibilities belonging to the office,…”
Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 923 S.W.2d 904 (Ky. Ct. App. 1996).
“When Diane represented the plaintiff and also was a defendant, this choice between Diane and Ohio left the jury with the impression that the only way for Sarah to get her money returned would be for the jury to find against Ohio and for Sarah’s mother in this instruction.”
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.