Summary

Portrait of Harlan F. Stone Harlan F. Stone Chapman v. Hoage — Opinion of the Court

Moreover, respondent is a compensated surety, whose premiums the employer is required to pay by section 32 (33 U.S.C.A. § 932) . The rule that any modification of the principal obligation releases the surety is also abated in the case of a compensated surety or indemnitor, who is discharged only so far as his right is shown to be in fact prejudiced by action of the indemnitee. One who engages in the business of insurance for compensation may properly be held more rigidly to his obligation to indemnify the insured than one whose suretyship is an undertaking uncompensated and casual.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature