Legal Opinion

Citizens' Bank v. Pearson

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided October 13, 1927No. 8 Div. 869PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Only the Citizens' Bank of Guntersville appeals and assigns error. The real controversy is between the appellant and the surety company. Although the latter was made a respondent to the bill by the bank, it answered, and by cross-bill asserted its right to the fund, which was a portion of the contract money due by Marshall county to the road contractor.

It should be stated that L. C. Pearson contracted with the duly constituted authorities to build four miles of road under the direction of the state highway engineer in Marshall county. The surety company was the guarantor on the bond for the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Prairie State Bank v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
  2. First Nat. Bank of Seattle v. City Trust, Safe Deposit & Surety Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1902
  3. First National Bank v. Fidelity & Deposit Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1906
  4. Fite v. PearsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1926

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Levinson v. LindermanWashington Supreme Court · 1958
  2. Maryland Casualty Co. v. DupreeSupreme Court of Alabama · 1931
  3. Granade v. United States Lumber & Cotton Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1931
  4. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. First Nat. Bank of LincolnSupreme Court of Alabama · 1932
  5. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. ArmstrongSupreme Court of Alabama · 1932

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API