
    CLEVE. WIND. GLASS CO. v. NAT. SURETY CO.
    Ohio Supreme Court.
    No. 20664.
    Decided April 18, 1928.
    «25. INDEMNITY BONDS — Rules of Construction— Ambiguity.
    1. Construction of to be reasonable, to carry but expressed intention of parties.
    2. One not a party thereto nor designated therein, should not be a beneficiary, unless it clearly appears, from terms, to he so intended.
    3. If terms are ambiguous, and susceptible of two interpretations, the one which affords greater indemnity ohould be adopted.
    Error to Cuyahoga Appeals.
    Judgment affirmed.
   MATTHIAS, J.

A bond of indemnity should receive a reasonable construction in order to carry out the in-tención pi' the parties as expressed by the language used. Such bond camiot be held to inure to the benefit of one not a party thereto nor designated therein unless it clearly appears from its terms that it was intended that .■•ucii party should be the beneficiary thereof, or the terms employed therein are ambiguous and susceptible of two interpretations which seem oij'jaily fair, in which event that interpretation should be adopted which affords the greater indemnity.

(Kinkade, Robinson and Jones, JJ., concur. Day, J., not participating*.)  