Bell v. Paul
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error to the district court for Douglas county. Tried below before Doane, J. Surety may stand on terms of his contract, and if material variation be made therein, without his consent, he will be discharged.
Read the full summary
Error to the district court for Douglas county. Tried below before Doane, J. Surety may stand on terms of his contract, and if material variation be made therein, without his consent, he will be discharged. (Brennan v. Clark, 29 Neb., 385; Simonson v. Thori, 31 Minn., 861; Miller v. Stewart, 9 Wheat. [U. S.], 703; Judah v. Zimmerman, 22 Ind., 392; Dorsey v. McGee, 30 Neb. 657.) The per centum fund to be retained under a building contract is to indemnify defendant in error against loss in case of failure of builder to complete contract, as well as a protection to sureties on builder’s bond;…
1Opinion of the CourtNobval, J.
This is an action by George P. Paul against Norling & Reynolds, aspríncipals, and John T. Bell and Ed. L. Howe, as sureties, on a certain building contract bond. The trial resulted in a verdict in favor of the plaintiff below in the sum of $1,418.86. A motion for a new trial having been filed by the defendants the plaintiff filed a remittitur for $122.36, whereupon the court overruled the motion for a new trial, and rendered judgment in plaintiff’s favor for the sum assessed by the jury, less the amount of said remittitur.' The sureties bring the cause into this court for review by petition…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Bragg v. ShainCalifornia Supreme Court · 1874
3Cited by14 opinions
- Doll v. CrumeNebraska Supreme Court · 1894
- De Mattos v. JordanWashington Supreme Court · 1896
- Stephens v. ElverWisconsin Supreme Court · 1898
- Eager v. SeedsSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1908
- Campbell-Root Lumber Co. v. SmithCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1912
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.