Legal Opinion

Webb v. Freng

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided June 5, 1923PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJones, J.

The first question presented is whether the complaint states a cause of action against the sureties on the bond. It is argued by counsel for appellants that it appears from the contract and the bond that the sureties were liable to the county only; that the bond was given to protect the county in case of the failure of Lee to perform his.contract, and that it is only in this connection that the word “sureties” is used in the contract; that in case of default the bond provided that payment should be made to the county; that this view is supported by the language in the contract that if he…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Getchell & Martin Lumber & Manufacturing Co. v. Peterson & SampsonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1904
  2. United States ex rel. Anniston Pipe & Foundry Co. v. National Surety Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1899
  3. Doll v. CrumeNebraska Supreme Court · 1894
  4. Kaufmann v. CooperNebraska Supreme Court · 1896
  5. Barker & Stewart Lumber Co. v. Marathon Paper Mills Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1911

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Camdenton Consolidated School District No. 6 Ex Rel. W. H. Powell Lumber Co. v. New York Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1937
  2. Baumann v. City of West AllisWisconsin Supreme Court · 1925
  3. Southern Surety Co. v. Metropolitan Sewerage CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1923
  4. Waukesha Concrete Products Co. v. Capitol Indemnity Corp.Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1985
  5. Building Contractors' Ltd. Mutual Liability Insurance v. Southern Surety Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1924

11 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